Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nova Scotia Barristers' Society


 * 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:13, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Nova Scotia Barristers' Society

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Self organisation for lawyers. This two liner article states nothing what makes them notable. On internet just over *19.000 hits (including own website and members) and 3 on Google News. Night of the Big Wind talk  18:17, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep (as author). As a Bar, the organization impacts everything lawyers do in the province, from letting them practice (the famous Bar exam) to removing their ability to do so, setting the cadre and guidelines on professional conduct, etc. As such, I believe it is inherently notable, much like a court system would be. Yes, it's a stub, and I don't have time nor the interest to research the matter and to make a more complete article out of it. I have provided two news references where the Bar is mentioned prominently. Regardless of my view that the Society is inherently notable as the statutory body for NS lawyers, if the CBC, CTV, the The Chronicle Herald and other media outlets think the NSBS is worthy enough to make the news, it passes WP:GNG. I have only researched in some specific media outlets, but I'm sure with more focused research one could come up with more evidence of notability. Best regards. CharlieEchoTango (talk) 18:56, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep - passes GNG; in fact, I would be quite surprised to learn of any state/provincial bar that doesn't. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 19:12, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * As far as I know every article is judged on his own merits. The article is just two sentences long and fails to tell what makes it notable. To keep it because there are articles like this, is no valid reason. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a collection of data. Night of the Big Wind  talk  21:26, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It clearly asserts notability. In fact, remarkably for a stub, each phrase is a claim of notability and is referenced. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 21:41, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * In your opinion. To me, it just tells what they are supposed to do by their Charter. Not what makes them special, outstanding or notable. Night of the Big Wind  talk  22:48, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Philosopher Let us reason together. 19:17, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nova Scotia-related deletion discussions. Philosopher Let us reason together. 19:17, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Philosopher Let us reason together. 19:17, 23 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep but a comment - I think that this is probably notable for a number of reasons, but it's not notable simply because it is inherently so (bar associations are not the same as the licensing bar, depending on the jurisdiction; I don't know how Canada works, but in the U.S. most bar associations are private organizations that licensed attorneys ("members of the bar") may or may not be required to join, and there's nothing inherently notable about that), nor is it not because it simply doesn't have a lot of google hits. AfD needs to be based around WP:N, not ghit counts. It's not a speedy keep either. We have specific criteria for speedy keeping and many of them imply some bad faith in the nomination. This is not a speedy keep candidate by any stretch of those guidelines. It is, however, a keep imho. Shadowjams (talk) 20:47, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but my understanding of WP:SK is that it refers to closure reason. My use of the term is a discussion is a reference to what is, to my mind, - and I could be mistaken - the vernacular usage; that is, it indicates that the conclusion is obvious and may be a prelude to an eventual WP:SNOW decision.  --Philosopher Let us reason together. 21:01, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I see 5 reasons for speedy keep, and unless I am wrong, no one applies here... Night of the Big Wind  talk  21:26, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * As I said, I'm not referring to WP:SK in my comment. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 21:39, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep: Notable, passes policy.  Ebe 123  → report on my contribs. 23:13, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep – Easily meets WP:N; in addition to what has already been noted, I'm seeing plenty of coverage in The Canadian Press. A few examples:
 * "Labour lawyer taking over as president of Nova Scotia Barristers Society". The Canadian Press [Toronto] 21 June 2002
 * "Nova Scotia Barristers Society warns lawyers of impersonation scam". The Canadian Press [Toronto] 04 Aug 2006
 * "Audit leads to suspension of former N.S. judge by barristers' society". The Canadian Press [Toronto] 27 Aug 2002
 * "Nova Scotia bar society to decide whether to open misconduct hearings". The Canadian Press [Toronto] 15 Oct 2001
 * "NS barristers' head rejects plan to force law firms to hire minorities" The Canadian Press [Toronto] 07 Sep 2000
 * ... and so on... Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 03:21, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - I'm surprised the article was nominated AFTER sources were added to the original stub. Sourcing is easily found to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:15, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep: Sources show notability. SL93 (talk) 23:30, 26 November 2011 (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.