Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Law blog


 * 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.   A rbitrarily 0   ( talk ) 00:38, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Law blog

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

There are many types of blogs. I don't think we need separate articles on each use of the blog type of website. This should be redirected to blog, and the use of blogs in the field of law can be described there. If enough content specific to "law blogs" collects there, it can be split off into its own article again. Equazcion ( talk ) 00:28, 3 Mar 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect Looks like a standard dictionary definition to me with no assertion of notability. Redirecting back to blog would likely work best here.  AniMate   08:02, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Transwiki to Wiktionary as it is a dictionary definition. Armbrust  Talk  Contribs  12:05, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand I created this article because political blogs, travel blogs education blogs classical music blogs exist . Law blogs are an important category since there are now several very influential law blogs that are widely cited by "old" media and pundits discussing significant policy issues.AMuseo (talk) 21:44, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand. Notability, thought not asserted, is obvious from a google search.  I added sources to ==Further Reading== that should give other editors a start.  Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 23:33, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.  —Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 20:09, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. A law blog is a blog about law.  A fish blog is a blog about fish.  A politics blog is a blog about politics.  There's nothing else to say here.  The neologism "blawg" is, well, a neologism, and doesn't rate an article per WP:NEO.  This is better covered by Wiktionary. TJRC (talk) 21:04, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Suffers from 1) Notability and 2) not enough substance to be a stand alone article yet. I would say if there is indeed substance that distinguishes law blogs as a topic separate from blogs in general, that should start as a subtopic of [blog]s (forked to a standalone topic at a later time if that becomes necessary)Hartboy (talk) 19:10, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete +1 on Hartboy's reasoning. Nuujinn (talk) 00:50, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTDICTIONARY. Armbrust  Talk  Contribs  02:00, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Seems to me this type of article would be bait for linkspam; either way, this isn't a dictionary. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 14:34, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per User:AMuseo. Journals about law are also just like journals about fishing. But we have law journal and we don't have fish journal. Lawyers write a lot so it makes sense that their writing mediums are notable.-- Pink Bull  14:39, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Law journal has actual content. In contrast, Law blog is nothing more than a dicdef and a WP:COATRACK on which to hang external links and spam. TJRC (talk) 18:34, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * With time, law blog can grow into a more serious article, like political blog, travel blogs edublog, and classical music blog.-- Pink Bull  19:11, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I have no objection to it being userfied and turned into an actual article. But in its present state, it's entirely dicdef and coatrack.  Fix those problems and you'd have nothing but an article title.  TJRC (talk) 19:17, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It will be far more difficult to turn it into a substantial article if it is not left in the mainspace. The other blog articles has similar dicdef-coatrack beginnings, but with time grew into good articles. -- Pink Bull  19:34, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * A few of those examples are arguably from when Wikipedia was a bit younger. Typically topics with this little content are not considered viable for separate articles, and are instead kept as sections of their parent topic, then split off if/when they grow large enough for a separate article. As I suggested in my nomination I think that's the best way to go. It would then still be in mainspace to aid expansion. Equazcion  ( talk ) 20:20, 10 Mar 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS has never been a good argument; but beside that, those blog articles weren't under AFD when they were in content-free state. If they had, perhaps they would not have survived, either.  The only one of these blogs that seems to heve been put to AFD and kept is Classical music blog; and it had actual substantial content by the time of its AFD. If  this article had actual substantive content, similar to that one, I would be arguing to keep.  But none of the arguments in that AFD (multiple independent reliable sources which establish notability; no substantive reason for deletion articulated) apply to this AFD (which illustrates arguing for a keep based on solely the existence of other stuff is such a poor argument; it doesn't look to the actual basis for why the other stuff was kept).  But you don't keep an article solely because the name of the article could be used for an actual article, because maybe the actual article might get written. TJRC (talk) 21:07, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If the others had undergone an afd, they may have not survived deletion. And that's the point. Those articles would probably not be in the position they are in now, if they would be around at all, had they gone through an afd. Thus, nobody is arguing at this point that it would have been better that those articles had been put up for deletion. Similarly, with time, this article can be improved to look like the other articles that did not undergo an afd.
 * As for WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, you're entirely correct. However that was not the argument for a Keep. The argument for keep is that a law blog is a notable. We only bring up other blogs to disprove the claim that this article is worthless and will never move beyond a dicdef-externallinks article. The other blog articles clearly disprove that claim. Sincerely, -- Pink Bull  22:19, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * There's actually also a guideline specifically warning against using google results in a keep argument, as they don't establish notability. Keep in mind that the existing articles on specific blog types talk about the phenomenon, rather than merely listing examples -- so there being lots of law blogs in existence doesn't mean there's lots of content for this article. See travel blog, classical music blog, etc for content examples. Equazcion  ( talk ) 22:35, 10 Mar 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Another point in favor of keeping this article: The articles in the "Further reading" section indicate that the writers of legal blogs face unique ethical challenges, e.g. they can get in trouble if their writing is construed as giving legal advice. Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 19:48, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Move content and redirect (changing my vote - Persuaded by Equazcion's comment ("Typically topics with this little content ...")) .  We should create a section, blog. It should NOT contain subsections (==Art Blog==, ==Political blog==, ==Classical music blog==).  Instead, it should list these in bullets:
 * Art Blog
 * Political blog
 * Law blog
 * A law blog, aka "blawg", is a ...
 * Travel blog

Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 20:43, 10 March 2010 (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.