Talk:Law Practice Magazine

Merger proposal and notability

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)

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 (ref. No [4]), , (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)

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)

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. 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)

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)

Proposed deletion inappropriate under current Wikipedia guidelines

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)