Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Law school pedagogy
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. No objection to anyone adding relevant sourced content to a related article in the future. Spellcast (talk) 22:12, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Law school pedagogy[edit]
- Law school pedagogy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Book advertisement disguised as an encyclopedia article. References do not establish that this is a recognised or common term (article was moved from "Law School Labyrinth"); possibly a neologism. Somno (talk) 04:19, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. —Somno (talk) 04:19, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Article describing infrequently used and non-notable neologism that can be inferred to have been created by an editor to promote his own book (in violation of WP:COI).—Preceding unsigned comment added by Bongomatic (talk • contribs)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 20:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:20, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - no longer a neologism following the page move. Having said that, the article is a terrible mess and, as tagged, has multiple issues. It does though have several reasonable sources and, indeed, is a valid and encyclopaedic concept. I am prepared to give it time to see if it can get cleaned up. TerriersFan (talk) 03:23, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Query. If cleaned up, would the article contain anything that didn't belong in legal education? EALacey (talk) 20:30, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Suggestion. Probably Law school would be a better merge target as more directly relevant. I wouldn't object to a merge there. TerriersFan (talk) 20:51, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Query. If cleaned up, would the article contain anything that didn't belong in legal education? EALacey (talk) 20:30, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 03:29, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete POV essay. A proper sourced article, on methods of education in law schools, can not be based on this. The present contents, if not plagiarism of the web site, is totally OR. The change in title does not disguise the fact that this is a publicity piece for a forthcoming 2009 book. [1] -which can hardly be notable yet, even if it ever becomes so. If kept, the article would need to be rewritten. The first step would be deleting every sentence with the word "labyrinth in it. I am very reluctant to say an article cannot be cleaned up, but there is no basis here to start doing it. DGG (talk) 01:09, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete apparent POV essay. CRGreathouse (t | c) 00:05, 9 October 2008 (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.