Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Toilet law firms


 * 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 nonsnese - cheating is futile.Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 04:42, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Toilet law firms, Toilet law
Contested PROD. Delete as a neologism that appears to fail WP:V; the only source I can find is the forum mentioned, so WP:RS is not met.
 * Also nominated in this discussion: Toilet law, which appears to lack establishment as a term as well. (Most results are irrelevant to this article and actually refer to, well, laws about toilets.) -- Kinu  t /c  19:50, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NEO (although this is probably a protologism), and web forums are not reliable sources. --Mr. L e fty Talk to me! 19:53, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete This term sounds like a slur. Allon FambrizziAllon Fambrizzi
 * Rename but I don't know to what. This class of firm (and case) that don't do well for revenue generation are looked down upon by others in the legal field. SchmuckyTheCat 23:07, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Mr. L. Danny Lilithborne 00:20, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and Mr. L. My Alt Account 00:57, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete both per WP:V and WP:NEO. Also, as a law student, I have never heard the term "toilet law" and I know that some of the contentions in the articles don't mince with reality.-- danntm T C 01:47, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep This is absurd. Wikipedia's coverage of law is lacking.  Why is big law defined yet small law is not defined at all.  XOXO, vault, and jdjive which most members of the legal community read is totally ignored on wikipedia.  I added Martindale Hubbel peer review which was also lacking.  Most members of the legal community are familiar with toilet law--especially in New York and New Jersey where so many are prevalent.  It's hard to believe that Wikipedia supports the dearth of information provided for the legal community and practice areas.  Also the article about PIP was rediculous and so obviously wrong.  Any toilet lawyer could tell you that.  But I see noone even trying to edit this.  Are any of the people who proposed deleting this even lawyers?  I saw one law student and can only say that law students know absolutely nothing about the law. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Njlawyer06 (talk • contribs) 02:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is not a slang dictionary. If you're a lawyer there are many other Law articles that need improving. ReverendG 02:55, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep One "vote" per person, please. The way that your site screens terms is rediculous.  First, laywers use Lexis and westaw and this isnt going to show up on google or whatever flavor of the week search engine tool you web geeks decide to use.  This is reflected by the quality and amount of legal terminology used on this site, which is sparse at best.  Second, the popularity of a term on the internet does not always correspond to its popularity in real life.  Most lawyers regularly use the term toilet law.  It is prevalently used on legal discussion boards and is as much a part of the legal community as the term Big Law. Third, I also see plenty of slang on wikipedia.  Just the other day I was reading about a "nanny state."  They even have such absurd categories as 9-11 conspiracies.  Yet with all the absurd subjects that do not get deleted because some rube has a web page, basic legal terms and categories are totally ignored.  Fourth, why would I update your legal listings if I am going to have a bevy of myopic web geeks censoring my posts.  It is especially disheartneing to know that these "editors" have limited and sometimes no legal knowledge.  I find it highly ironic that some of your legal terms have glaring errors and omissions.  Why is it that the greatest interest on this term is not in verifying that terms are correctly defined; rather the singular focus seems to limit the breadth of terms defined on wikipedia.  This sort of snobbery leads to an abridged exchange of ideas and circumvents any exercise int he free exchange of ideas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Njlawyer06 (talk • contribs) 06:09, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete Subject matter is juvenile ad hominem of no reasonable value to anyone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.111.51.212 (talk • contribs) 07:38, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * KeeepThis article is certainly not ad hominem. I imagine that whoever wrote that is from a TTT or what we in the legal proferssion call a third teir toilet.  Perhaps this Cooley law student should learn is that ad hominem menas against the person.  You are using it as a noun when it is an adverb to describe an argument that is made against a person rather than the subject matter itself.  What a moronic thing to say and way to butcher the term in this way.  The article poses no argument.  It merely defines a term that is widely used to describe the type of jobs available to recent law graduates.
 * Comment: No, a "moronic" thing would be blatantly violating WP:NPA. Please play nicely here. -- Kinu t /c  04:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * KEEP**** This is NOT a personal attack, this term is very used but not appreciated by those who practice in these areas of law. Additionally, they do not want to exposed to the public what all the other lawyers already know. If you delete it, it will be a shame. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.194.99.179 (talk • contribs) 10:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Delete. The forum in question is anonomous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.30.96.2 (talk • contribs) 15:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep* It is a term widely used in well-traveled internet forums in the legal community. It is also a term widely used among young attorneys in communications not on the internet. The New York Times and other mainstream media publications routinely publish skewed articles like http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F50D1FF8355A0C728CDDA00894DE404482 that portray attorney salaries as astronomical, when in fact less than 10% of young attorneys even see six figures. Most young attorneys start in the $40k and $50k range, but no one knows the truth. Wikipedia should keep the free exchange of ideas open, so the truth can be heard. As to the pronouncement that "toilet law" is "juvenile," allow me to point to other terms on Wikipedia like "DVDA," which is a slang term for "double vaginal, double anal," a sex position that has never been used. And as to slang terms not known to the general public, what about "hyphy," which is a term to describe an underground hip hop dance form originating from San Francisco? If "big law" is an entry, so should "toilet law," as "toilet firms" outnumbed BigLaw firms 50 to 1, yet the public readily associates attorneys with names like Skadden, Cravath and Wachtell, when sadly, that association is not based in reality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.79.85.226 (talk • contribs) 15:31, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete term that really doesn't exist, unlike ambulance chaser that apparently doesn't merit an article. Carlossuarez46 20:38, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Why can't ambulance chaser o rterms like common barristory be used.  I saw that once in a case i read in first year contracts — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.41.246.52 (talk • contribs)
 * Delete can find no evidence to back up claims that this term is in common enough use for an article. Drak 14:42, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * keep*** this term is in common usage within law schools in NYC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.83.146.249 (talk • contribs) 15:28, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I move for a Speedy Delete to end this agony. This article is paradigmatic of something that should not be on wikipedia: a neologism, disparaging, unsourced, etc. Allon FambrizziAllon Fambrizzi
 * Delete nonverifiable neologism Mukadderat 04:26, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete both, nonverifiable neologisms, but not speedy so that there is a precedent if someone tries to recreate the articles. NawlinWiki 14:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, although usage of the term "toilet" to refer to a sub-par firm or institution didn't originate with JdJive. It originated much earlier, years ago in fact, on the Princeton Review boards. There is common usage of this term among the ranking-obsessed overachiever crowd, who are all trying to "gun" for the top schools, top firms, and top credentials (see xoxohth.com - which arose from the Princeton Review boards), although it might seem juvenile to outsiders. If we have commonly used terms on Wikipedia used by other subcultures, such as underground hip-hop and techies (as mentioned earlier), I don't see why we can't keep an open mind about this term. Notoriousbhc 13:08, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: ... as mentioned earlier, because the article on the term fails to meet WP:V. Boards and such do not count as reliable sources for neologisms. -- Kinu t /c  13:44, 14 September 2006 (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.