Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Building a Better Legal Profession

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. Looking at the difference between when the article was nominated and now, it appears that, even if it wasn't necessarily worth saving, it has been. Given the WP:HEY improvement of the article, as well as the lack of support for deletion, I'm closing this as keep. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 03:08, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Building a Better Legal Profession (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This group appears to be defunct. The article is a poorly sourced promotional mess and given that the group doesn't seem to exist anymore, it doesn't seem worth saving. Not seeing WP:SIGCOV here. Marquardtika (talk) 01:27, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:24, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:24, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I am seeing a reasonable number of hits in Google Books. I am wondering if this can't be merged and redirected somewhere. bd2412 T 12:03, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @BD2412: I have tidyied up the refs and added some new ones; I think there is enough now to Keep this per WP:GNG. Britishfinance (talk) 13:39, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The group may no longer exist but it was notable in its time with WP:SIGCOV in the NYT [1], and Los Angeles Times (see article), and WSJ [2], and CBS [3], heavy referencing in the Stanford Law Review [4] (and other journals). I'm continuing to add more references, but at least technically passes WP:GNG. No need to delete. Britishfinance (talk) 12:50, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment the LA Times also did two articles on them ("Lack of diversity marks L.A. law - latimes" 11 October 2007 by Henry Weinstein; "Law students make appeal for change - latimes" 18 March 2008 by Molly Selvin) but I just can't get behind the URL to them (seems to be part of the LA Times archives and not available to readers in Europe like me). Britishfinance (talk) 13:00, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - per WP:HEY by @Britishfinance: sourcing is sufficient to demonstrate notability and quality improved. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:50, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.