Talk:Law Practice Magazine

This article was nominated for deletion on 9 June 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

	Chicago portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles or pages related to Chicago or the Chicago metropolitan area.ChicagoWikipedia:WikiProject ChicagoTemplate:WikiProject ChicagoChicago articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Magazines Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Magazines, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of magazines on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MagazinesWikipedia:WikiProject MagazinesTemplate:WikiProject Magazinesmagazine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
See WikiProject Magazines' writing guide for tips on how to improve this article.

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Merger proposal and notability[edit]

I don't see anything in this article that can't be handled by a single half-sentence in the ABA article. I see no evidence of independent notability. -- THF 19:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message. I oppose the merge in ABA article. Notable magazine: see, for instance (obtained from a Google Scholar query on "Law Practice Management"), citations in [1] (ref. No [4]), [2], [3] (ref. No 2.) These are just three random citations - a deeper exploration of Google Scholar would certainly reveal more citations. --Edcolins 19:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the notability tag for now, but feel free to reinsert it if my evidences are considered insufficient under WP:N and WP:BK. But please explain then. Thanks. --Edcolins 20:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't persuade me as to notability. A hundred other law reviews are notable by the standard of the cited-in-a-footnote-once-every-other-year. My blog is cited in law reviews more often than that.[4] What's the grounds for an independent article rather than a side note in the ABA article? The ABA publishes all sorts of stuff, it's not all notable. THF 02:58, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note. I respectfully disagree with your opinion. The article appears to be notable to me. Having articles on sources such as specialized magazines is invaluable. By the way, by admitting that a merge in ABA is in order, you have taken the opinion that the content of the article should be preserved. Wikipedia:Guide to deletion says:

"Merge is a recommendation to keep the article's content but to move it into some more appropriate article. It is either inappropriate or insufficient for a stand-alone article. After the merger, the article will be replaced with a redirect to the target article (in order to preserve the attribution history)."

If you think the content should be kept, then I think an independent article would better present the topic, with corresponding external links to the ISSN entry, and so on. Cheers. --Edcolins 20:55, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion inappropriate under current Wikipedia guidelines[edit]

The proposed deletion (PROD) is inappropriate since, as indicated above, the deletion is not uncontroversial. I explictly indicated that I respectfully disagreed with your opinion as mentioned above.

"This process should only be used for articles that are uncontroversial deletion candidates." (see WP:PROD)

--Edcolins 07:56, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]