Talk:Legal research in the United States

--.,sskllak[pksksapkAThe link is made in French "Veille juridique". You are no more orphan !

I think this train wreck of an article needs to be deleted
The problem with this article is stated right in its very text: it's a "process-oriented article." That is a facial violation of WP:NOT: "Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal." As this mess has been marked for cleanup since 2009 and nothing has happened in eight years, it's clear that no one has the time, energy, or inclination to rewrite this mess from scratch. Any objections before I nominate this for deletion? --Coolcaesar (talk) 18:03, 21 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree. It is inappropriate in setting out to be a guidebook, and if it is to be preserved, it would have to be extensively re-written. To the extent there is any useful information in this article, it could be incorporated into Legal research or List of sources of law in the United States. --LegalSkeptic (talk) 12:59, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree too. It is a tutorial on how to get by without Lexis or WestLaw, and it's not the sort of thing Wikipedia is meant for. --Rajulbat (talk) 04:06, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Nothing done on this, either? I have cleaned it up a bit; some of its content is useful. Arllaw (talk) 22:42, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * That's precisely the problem. As the above-quoted section from WP:NOT indicates, Wikipedia is not supposed to be "useful" in and of itself. That element of WP:NOT helps to prevent mission creep. We have Wikibooks for people who want to write an open-source textbook on legal research. --Coolcaesar (talk) 19:13, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * By the same token that information should not be included "solely because it is true or useful", information should not be deleted from Wikipedia merely because it is useful. As indicates,  should this article be deleted, there is content in this article that could be incorporated into other articles. Arllaw (talk) 05:07, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I suppose I should rephrase my original comment and clarify that to the extent there is encyclopedic information in this article, it should be incorporated into other articles. The article is still an inappropriate how-to guide. LegalSkeptic (talk) 01:17, 13 June 2019 (UTC)