Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Law Practice Today


 * 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. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;   &spades;  06:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Law Practice Today

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Fails to assert notability; this is a monthly webzine supplement to the print magazine Law Practice. The citations don't support notability claims; they generally refer to its inclusion in not-very-discriminate lists and blogs. There are also signs of original research: it offers citations to itself as evidence for claims such as "It has addressed the issue of outsourcing ... and is widely sourced as such in the legal community" and "It is considered useful to those in the legal profession in starting a law practice as well as enabling one to thrive". But these statements amount to novel syntheses, because the article fails to provide sources up to WP:V standards that have previously published such statements about Law Practice Today. Tearlach 23:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Vanispamcruftisement comes to mind.  — Athaenara ✉ 00:44, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep It is cited as a resource by various organizations legal blogs and articles who declare its usefulness. These resources are listed in the footnotes to the article. Additionaly this is not just some random webpage,  rather it is a publication of the American Bar Association. As such it is a trade magazine and a a resource used by those in the legal community. Per wikipedia's guidelines it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Heliumballoon 02:17, 24 May 2007 (UTC) — Heliumballoon (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete. There has not been significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject: there has been an occasional link in an indiscriminate blogroll.  Editor is working in good faith, but doesn't understand Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and uses footnotes in a brief-writing, rather than encyclopedic, style: all the references are either dubious stretches claiming endorsements that don't exist or violations of WP:SYN.  At best, the subject merits a single line in the Law Practice article, except that article would probably also flunk WP:N, so perhaps it merits a single line plus a single hyperlink in the ABA article.  The only thing keeping this from a speedy delete is WP:BITE, but I'm concerned that the editor continues to fail to get the point. THF 02:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete this vanispamcruftisement. See here for some more discussion on the issue. MER-C 08:44, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and move merge (and redirect) to Law Practice Management Magazine, Law Practice Management or Law Practice Magazine, whatever is the current name of the main journal (the name seems to have changed from Law Practice Management Magazine to Law Practice Magazine recently - see note "* Formerly Law Practice Management." on ). Apparently Law Practice Today is a supplement to the main law journal with . Google Scholar returns 603 hits for this ISSN "1045-9081".  Before deleting the article, please read the introduction in List of missing journals. For information, I have posted a message on the discussion page Wikipedia talk:List of missing journals for hopefully obtaining useful input from experienced editors in the "journal sphere". To reach a consensus, it seems useful to me to involve more contributors. Cheers. --Edcolins 18:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. Is there a single sentence in this article that survives a move?  Nothing's keeping someone from editing the Law Practice Magazine article to include verifiable references to Law Practice Today.  -- THF 19:02, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, "Law Practice Today is a monthly webzine supplement to the American Bar Association Law Practice Management Section's Law Practice magazine." Is that not enough? redirects are cheap. --Edcolins 19:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Further comment. That Google Scholar reference isn't all that persuasive--every listing appears to be a self-listing, rather than an independent reference to the magazine.  THF 19:04, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, wrong, the first 630 Google Scholar hits are indeed self-listing, but afterwards it is mixed . Three random examples provided on Talk:Law Practice Magazine. --Edcolins 19:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * (My point is still completely valid, but I just feel obliged to mention that the second Google Scholar query was "Law practice management" - the old name of the publication - while the first was "1045-9081" - its ISSN. Sorry for the confusion.) --Edcolins 20:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. There was an extensive discussion with the creator of this article, User:Heliumballoon, at the COI noticeboard. That conversation seems to have continued on the Talk page of the article. I am particularly influenced by the comments of User:Tearlach on the article Talk page, that actual favorable comments in reliable sources need to be found, rather than mere passing mentions, for example in blogrolls and in web directories. The current version of the article lacks reliable sources, so it doesn't pass our test for notability. EdJohnston 00:29, 26 May 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.