Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Legal advice


 * 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 keep. North America1000 01:05, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Legal advice

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The most fundamental objection to Legal advice is that it's a definition. There was a somewhat vigorous debate at Talk:Legal_advice about whether that's the case or not. In summary, the article offers a definition of legal advice and then attempts to tease out exactly how to identify "legal advice", for this definition of legal advice. While I think there are other reasons for concern, this seems like a strong enough reason on its own to delete the article. Fabrickator (talk) 15:50, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Ironically, clicking on the "find sources" link, the first (unsponsored) hit, at the moment, is for "free legal advice"... which would seem to be an oxymoron, based on the definition provided by this article. Fabrickator (talk) 07:32, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep There is a notable thing called "legal advice" which is distinct from just any old advice about some legal issue.BayShrimp (talk) 16:00, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Snow keep - highly notable subject. Article is unreferenced, but it should be based purely on sources and I don't see any issue. This is a good source to start, first I found:, another , and this indicates additional information can come from the term "legal advice" having different meanings in different places  —Мандичка YO 😜 16:04, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: Ummm, just curious: how do you advocate a "snow" Keep after only one other Keep proponent had posted?  Nha Trang  Allons! 17:17, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * When the nomination is so completely absurd that it is obvious that has zero chance of success. As in this case. James500 (talk) 18:07, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Vizzini, I don't theenk that essay means what you theenk it means ...  Nha Trang  Allons! 14:02, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I have no idea who Vizzini is, or what you are talking about. It might, frankly, be possible to invoke WP:SK on grounds that the nomination is frivolous. Broad topics with massive coverage like this are never deleted, though they are sometimes merged (to a co-tract if one can be identified, and, in this case, none has) or disambiguated. The outcome of this AfD is a foregone conclusion. James500 (talk) 11:24, 5 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep per above - Legal advice is extremely notable and is a extremely well-known term, We're an encyclopedia and this is encyclopedic. – Davey 2010 Talk 16:26, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete, but it won't matter: The search term is a self-explaining compound (e.g. "coffeetable," "kneecap") that barely rates a definition. The content tries to save the article by offering context in common law (but not vs. civil law) nations and "in the age of the Internet," but those sections aren't well documented. This content is more naturally found at "attorney" or "law." Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Hithladaeus (talk) 18:28, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * A coffee table is not just a table on which coffee is served and a kneecap is not a cap to cover your knee. BayShrimp (talk) 01:36, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You mistake connotation and denotation: Both words entered the language as self-explaining compounds. The coffee table may be used as a shield against gunfire in detective films, but it does not change the denotation of the word. The knee cap caps the knee. The patella, on the other hand, is a wonderful topic in medicine. I'm talking about words, and you're talking about cultural tokens. A timetable is a table of times. Metaphorically, "timetable" has been extended, but that's, again, something else, and when Wikipedia gets into the business of tracking figurative associations, connotations, and cultural implications, it will have stepped off the high dive. Hithladaeus (talk) 12:37, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't understand this objection. A coffee table is a distinct item of furniture (generally lower than most other tables) - are you denying this? This characterisation is not a cultural association or "connotation". This is what "coffee table" means. This is what you'll get if you walk into a furniture shop or design museum and ask to be shown the coffee tables. Are you saying we shouldn't have articles on coffee tables or kneecaps? Are you saying the Wikipedia article timetable should cover all tables of times without distinction (tables of sporting records, lists of the longest feature films, TV schedules, ephemerises, calendars, time-zone tables, tide tables, lists of radioactive half-lives, guidance for roasting meat...)? Are you saying Wikipedia should assign meanings to words based on their etymology not usage? Do you think the article great coat should be about awesome jackets through history? Colapeninsula (talk) 14:32, 2 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep: The article is clearly under-sourced, but remains a notable topic. This source linked above mentions the fact that (in the US), giving legal advice is equivalent to practicing law, and carries with it certain laws and regulations. The article currently discusses the use of this term in UK law. I think this current (and potentially future) expansion from the definition exclude it from WP:NAD. Bordwall( talk &frasl; ctrb ) 20:50, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Exactly - legal advice is regulated. If you are not a lawyer but you represent yourself as one and give "legal advice" you can be prosecuted for practicing law without a license, even if you never set foot in the courtroom or charged a fee. —Мандичка YO 😜 16:33, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 2 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Snowball keep. Absolutely utterly preposterous nomination. Obviously notable. This clearly satisfies GNG with many books devoted entirely to it, and significant coverage in many hundreds of relevant sources in GBooks alone. It is obviously capable of being expanded beyond a definition. For one example only, in A First Book of English Law (4th Ed), O H Phillips tells us that legal aid and advice are not the same thing, and his section headed "legal advice" discusses the legal advice centres set up in 1959 under Legal Aid and Advice Act 1949, and the voluntary legal advice scheme set up at the same time. That sort of content is clearly more than a definition. Note that this level of coverage in an introductory work indicates that the topic is of enormous importance. And there is plenty more coverage of that kind. In this case, however, the word/definition/concept, such as the definition given by section 7(2) of the said Act of 1949, is also notable as a word/definition/concept, having received plenty of coverage as such, which is allowed under the rubric of NOT anyway, if you read it carefully. (Statutory 'definitions' and case law on their interpretation are certainly not dictionary definitions. They are propositions or rules of law. They are instructions or commands from Parliament and the courts that have the force of law and, ultimately, some kind of sanction for non compliance. For example the said section 7 is not just a definition, it is really commanding that legal advice, as therein defined, be given in the cases therein specified, or else. Statutes don't define terms merely for the sake of doing so. And dictionaries never have the force of law. If you wanted to be really awkward, you could insist on renaming the article "the law of legal advice", or such like, but it would be pointless nitpicking and it is not our normal practice. You might as well try to argue that our articles on murder, manslaughter, etc are mere definitions. And you would be equally wrong. And the definition given in the said section 7(2) certainly isn't self explanatory. The enormous amount of information in sources on this subject won't fit into the article "law" (WP:SPINOUT) and since we have not had attorneys in the United Kingdom since the Judicature Act 1873, that isn't a suitable target either.) James500 (talk) 17:41, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * As verbose as your comment is, I'm having trouble figuring out what points reasonably support your "keep" position. Responding to your most salient points, such as they are:
 * Legal aid and legal advice are not the same thing.
 * Perhaps that would justify an entry for "legal aid", but I don't see how that would support an entry for "legal advice".
 * No, what I was saying was that there are different types of legal services, that they may be independently notable and that they shouldn't necessarily be lumped into a single article. James500 (talk) 11:24, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Legal advice centres were established by an Act of Parliament.
 * Even though the pertinent act provides a statutory defiition of "legal advice", it is still being used in the sense implied by the combination of the individual words, i.e. advice pertaining to the application of the law.
 * What section 7(2) says is: "Legal advice shall consist of oral advice on legal questions given by a solicitor employed whole time or part time for the purpose and shall include help in preparing an application for legal aid and in supplying information required in connection therewith for determining disposable income and capital, but (subject to the following provisions of this section) shall not include advice on any law other than English law." That is not obviously "implied by the combination of the individual words" at all. It is not even close. In some respects it is more restrictive (oral advice only on English law only given by a solicitor only (not even a barrister) employed for the purpose only). In some respects it is less restrictive (help in preparing an application looks more like assistance than mere advice and supplying information required for determining disposable income and capital looks more like the work of an accountant than a lawyer). (The provision has been copied, with modifications, by other countries. O H Phillips seems to further suggest that "legal advice" only included advice on non-litigious matters). But that isn't the point that I was trying to make. The point that I was actually trying to make was that if we can include information in the article about, for example, the nature of the legal advice that is actually provided, and the circumstances under which it is provided (eg by the said Act of Parliament, certain particular services were available in a special place for a special price for poor-ish people, and there was a voluntary/charitable scheme as well), and the reasons why it is so provided in that form, under those circumstances, and so on and so forth, that information is clearly more than a definition, and clearly places this topic outside of the scope of the policy you tried to invoke. James500 (talk) 11:24, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Statutes have their own specialized definitions.
 * Are you really suggesting that we should be describing the finer points of the definitions as specified in every notable statute?
 * Actually the salient point was that the passage in section 7(2) which might appear at first sight, to a person who doesn't understand what a statute is, to be a definition, is in fact no such thing. It is not merely a definition. It is in fact "the command of a sovereign backed by a sanction" (to paraphrase Bentham's definition of a law). It has to be read in its context, which is mandating the provision of "legal advice" at a reduced or nominal price. Moreover, in that case, it is not merely the statute that is notable as a whole. The level of coverage is so large that individual sections of the Act could reasonably be regarded as satisfying GNG. This is not unusual for Acts of Parliament. James500 (talk) 11:24, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The definition given in section 7(2) of "Legal Aid and Advice Act 1949" certainly isn't self explanatory.
 * Hardly any law is self-explanatory!
 * I was merely denying the factual accuracy an argument advanced by someone else above. James500 (talk) 11:24, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Fabrickator (talk) 02:49, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * You haven't addressed all of the salient points that I made, or even the most important ones. You have, most importantly, not addressed the vast discussion of this topic in GBooks and elsewhere, much of which goes far beyond a definition. Even if it is not in the article now, it still has to be considered that it can be included in the article per ATD, BEFORE, IMPERFECT and SOFIXIT. AfD isn't cleanup. The sole objection you have made against this article (calling it a definition) can obviously be fixed by editing. And there are already parts of it that are not a definition (the provisions of the Legal Services Act 2007), so it doesn't really even need to be "fixed" in that sense, though the article could be improved. James500 (talk) 11:24, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Most of what I come across regarding "legal advice" (and this evidently includes "Legal Services Act 2007") is in the context of people seeking information about the law without having to hire the services of a legal professional, such as self-help materials, what sort of "legal assistance" may be provided by librarians, and assistance provided by court personnel in their proper conduct to facilitate access to the courts. The most common usage of the term certainly seems to be as part of a disclaimer by someone who has provided their opinion about some kind of legal situation and who hopes to avoid a lawsuit in the event that someone acts on their advice with bad results and/or to avoid being charged with the unauthorized practice of law.  You keep raising the statutory definition in a specific Act of Parliament, but nothing in the title of the article suggests that's what it's about.  While an article on that subject may be very appropriate for Wikipedia, it's got nothing to do with this AfD.  As written, the gist of the article is still just a definition with examples to help one determine whether something is "legal advice".  Although you say that the "definition" issue can be overcome by "fixing" the article, one could make such a statement about virtually any article that, as written, provides a definition.  The "possibilities" for this article are highly speculative, given where the edits have taken this article, but deleting the existing article for being a definition should not discourage someone from creating an article about this topic that is actually suitable for Wikipedia. Fabrickator (talk) 13:24, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I disagree. The article is not merely a definition. In fact, the vast majority of it isn't. The passage that says that the Act of 2007 "means that [legal advice] can be provided by any person not just an officer of the court. However, if it is provided by a lawyer or another person authorised by one of the front line legal services regulators, then this activity is included within their regulatory reach", to give one example, is not a definition. It is a discussion of the consequences of giving legal advice. The following paragraph is not a definition either, it is on observation that legal advice can be had on the internet, and a general description of what legal advice can be obtained. The second paragraph distinguishing "pro bono" advice from that which is remunerated, and discussing their relative frequency, is not a definition of "legal advice". The only part of the article that is a definition is the first paragraph. Moreover, by WP:PRESERVE, WP:IMPERFECT and WP:ATD, which are policy, we never delete an article merely because it is a definition at the moment, because that is a problem that can be fixed by editing. We only delete an article if it is incapable of being expanded beyond a definition. NOT specifically warns us that a stub is not a definition, no matter how much it looks like one, and we must be very careful not to confuse the two. It warns us that an expandable stub is never to be deleted just because it looks like a definition. And this article is a perfectly valid stub. There are good reasons for this approach. Deleting articles on notable topics doesn't facilitate improvements, it obstructs them. In particular, anonymous users can't create new articles, so we immediately exclude the majority of editors by deletion. It also makes the topic less visible to registered users, thereby reducing the likelihood they will do anything. It destroys any existing useful content (so that the same work will have to be done twice). And ... there are lots and lots of other reasons that I don't have time to name. It is just a very, very, very bad idea. As for section 7(2) of the Act of 1949, the title of our article strongly suggests that our article is at least partly about the type of legal advice therein described. It is impossible to get away from the fact that it is exactly the same expression. I'm not convinced your analysis of the common usage of this term is correct either. The idea that this refers primarily to a disclaimer is not what I am seeing in reliable sources. And in this respect, we don't care about unreliable sources. The article certainly requires improvement but there are no valid grounds for deletion. James500 (talk) 17:49, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * James500, I think we have gotten to the nut of the issue between us. You cite WP:PRESERVE, which states "preserve the value that others add...", and the value that I see in the existing article is either "de minimis" or negative value.  One statement after another is made which is consistent with the idea that something can be "legal advice" only if it's paid for, or otherwise provided in conjunction with a relationship that has been established between a legal professional and a client (an "attorney-client" relationship, as we would say in the states).  I reject this claim.  The "unqualified" definition of "legal advice" is "advice" pertaining to the law.  It's "legal advice" whether it's right or wrong, whether it's provided by a professional or somebody who is completely unschooled in the law; it means just what those two words mean, until somebody has "qualified" the term by stating the definition provided is in the context of unauthorized practice of law, or legal advice that a librarian or an officer of the court should provide, or legal advice in the context of a specific statute.  So the article is loaded with erroneous information and has a few bits of things that, in most cases, are no more than tangentially related to the topic of the article.  From this perspective, one must sift through an article that has almost nothing of value, to get a few crumbs.  Seeing negligible if any value in the existing article, my perspective is that WP:PRESERVE doesn't really apply. Fabrickator (talk) 19:41, 5 June 2015 (UTC)


 * The information in the article isn't obviously wholly unverifiable. In particular, there is a statute that says "legal advice" can only come from a solicitor. If there is a verifiable alternative definition of "legal advice", that is an argument for disambiguation, not deletion. However, in my experience, when dealing with a broad and seemingly amorphous topic, the community tends, rightly or wrongly, to resist disambiguation unless the difference between the two definitions is overwhelming (and sometimes intense resistance continues far beyond that point). "Advice about the law that is from a lawyer, or is paid for, or both" is fairly close to "advice about the law", and is, in any event, a subset. I expect the community to regard them together as forming a single topic, or at least to regard the former as a subtopic (meaning that we just rework the lead of article). In any event, precise determination of the exact scope of the topic should be deferred until more sources have been compiled (ie as many as possible), as it will be easier at that point. Nor is AfD a suitable forum for reaching such a determination. The article is not so obviously spectacularly wrong that I would expect it to be deleted. It would be much easier to improve the article than to start again from scratch. It would involve less effort. We don't want to end up like Nupedia. James500 (talk) 23:28, 5 June 2015 (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.