Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Law practice management


 * 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   no consensus. Many of the arguments presented in favor of retaining the page are weak and lack citations to appropriate policy, hence no consensus. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 01:53, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Law practice management

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

I don't see this as an encyclopedia article really - author gave reason for creation as "bring together as many resources as possible to help attorneys control their practices ...", and article says the term "has no set definition". Cassandra 73 (talk) 18:37, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Practice of law. This would make sense IMHO. --Edcolins (talk) 20:14, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is in drastic need of cleanup, obviously, but is a start on an article on an encyclopedic topic.  Do not merge to Practice of law.  That article deals with the practice of law, i.e. the legal restrictions on becoming an attorney and practicing as an attorney.  This article deals with management of a legal office.  They are distinct topics. TJRC (talk) 21:49, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.  —TJRC (talk) 21:52, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The article doesn't indicate that management of a legal office is fundamentally different from business management in general, most of the "elements of Law Practice Management" listed (recruitment, training and development, software management etc) would apply to virtually all types of business. Cassandra 73 (talk) 22:15, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * It has a few things that are unique to law practice management: client trust funds and the issue non-attorney membership, for example. I agree concede, it doesn't cover these well, and I agree concede, the article needs dramatic improvement.  It could cover IOLTA requirements; malpractice insurance; MCLE requirements; docketing, and more.  But that's a reason to improve an article, not to delete it. TJRC (talk) 23:10, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I wasn't saying it needed improvement, I was questioning whether it's an article topic in its own right. Most of the items you mention it could cover already have their own articles. Cassandra 73 (talk) 23:22, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I understand you. You're saying it merits deletion.  I'm saying it needs improvement. My error, I used "agree" above, where the correct word is probably "concede." TJRC (talk) 23:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * At the moment, the article doesn't even have anything to stub it with. IOLTA can be covered in IOLTA.  Delete without prejudice to creation of a real article. THF (talk) 23:17, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep I don't see this as a nomination really as the steps described in our deletion process clearly have not been followed. There isn't a discussion page for the article and so local discussion does not seem to have been tried yet.  And there are numerous books devoted entirely to this topic so it has great notability.  The action required is improvement in accordance with our editing policy. This discussion is not it and so should be terminated forthwith. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:23, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I initially raised it at the content noticeboard, as it overwrote an existing redirect to a magazine which was formerly called Law Practice Management. I only got one response, a suggestion that this article be moved to a lower-case title so it could be separated from the redirect, which was taken up.
 * I don't think that something being the subject for a book automatically means it should be a subject for an article, as books are not always about one single topic but can be various topics grouped together for a particular interest group, plus my quick search suggests books on this subject are generally "how-to" type guides. Cassandra 73 (talk) 20:03, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - When I see an article X that starts off "The subject of X has no set definition," I suspect that the article can be safely deleted unless/until someone figures out what the article is about. That is, if the article's creator and subsequent editors don't even know what the topic is, they're not likely to be able to write a useful article. A title like "Law practice management" is so vague that about all that can be written is a how-to guide, and that's one of the things that WP is not. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 04:27, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * There are numerous topics for which there is no exact definition such as Philosophy, Science fiction, Dark energy or Stupidity but this is no bar to our writing about them. In this case, the previous authors had done creditable job of assembling definitions from a variety of sources.  This perhaps needed some consolidation, which I have done, but is no reason to delete.  Your opinion that the matter can only be written in a certain way seems presumptious as it appears that you don't even know what the topic is.  I understand the topic very well and so can assure you that it is easy to write upon in our preferred style. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:24, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The title is self-explanatary, WP:NOTHOWTO is probably the main issue here as the article is still a how-to guide even after the amendments. Cassandra 73 (talk) 12:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No, the article is not written in a how-to style as it lacks step-by-step instructions, exercises and worked examples. In any case, that would not be a reason to delete as it would be just a matter of style and so best remedied by rewriting in accordance with our editing policy.  AFD is not cleanup and so such stylistic concerns are best discussed on the article's talk page.  Colonel Warden (talk) 13:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Click Google news search, then Google book search up top. Some of those seem credible references don't they?  The American Bar Association has what they call Law Practice Management, and have a section just for it on their official website.    D r e a m Focus  09:58, 12 November 2009 (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.