Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dean's Law Dictionary


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup Sports! 02:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Dean&

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

In spite of repeated requests to supply 3rd party/independent sources to verify notability the author's creator has failed to do so. Originally up for a spam CSD the article was rewritten slightly and the CSD was removed. 2850 ghits although a proportion of those are retail sources. The article's creator is one of the firm's progenitors so there is also a problem of WP:COI. Author removed prod. Frequently uses the WP:WAX argument in relation to Black's Law Dictionary. WebHamster 15:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - While the article is clearly a WP:SOAP in its current form, I am inclined to let it stay for a while, especially as it has been up for less then a day, until at least it has gone through a few revisions by other editors. The author doesn't strike me as trying to spam, more as misunderstanding exactly what Wikipedia is for. ~  Cr∞nium  15:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * A great idea, hopefully someone will step up and clean up the article. I'll keep my delete because for now I still think the article is a mess and its spamminess concerns me; but a) 5 days is plenty of time for the article to be cleaned up, and b) AfD is not a vote, so it's not you against me; hey I'm just making a suggestion :) let's see what everybody else thinks. Roadmr (t|c) 16:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. Firstly the article is written very poorly, with most wikilinks broken or badly formatted, even though most of them intend to link to existing definitions such as united states law; the author just didn't bother to check the referenced pages. The article still reads like a brochure for the product; the author added an availability section in the article and signed it, evidencing poor understanding of article editing and signing procedures. His eagerness to add the dictionary to Law dictionary, not only as an allegedly notable downloadable dictionary, but also as a "major law dictionary" (conspicuously making it the only one listed on two categories) just reeks of WP:SPAM to me. Also, the author's contribution history strongly suggests an agenda for promoting this product. Finally, as per nom, the WP:WAX argument doesn't hold (let's give it the benefit of doubt even though black's has almost 500,000 google hits compared to less than 3000 for dean's); perhaps other law dictionaries should be under scrutiny too, but as of this AfD discussion, dean's dictionary is the one being reviewed. Roadmr (t|c) 16:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment - In order to keep, the article needs WP:RS that verify notibility. If the subject is notable and sources show this, poor writing and tone issues can be addressed. If sources can't be found by the end of this Afd, delete. --Shirahadasha 16:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete non-notable treatise. Bearian 20:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletions.   -- John Vandenberg 22:46, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete unless there are real sources. Many of the ghits are accidental mentions. The full phrase limited to .edu gives zero ghits, which indicates the lack of academic acceptance.DGG (talk) 03:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.