Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Law and Corpus Linguistics

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The result was withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:00, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Law and Corpus Linguistics[edit]

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

Not sufficiently notable to justify an article - lacks useful content. Rathfelder (talk) 17:12, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:22, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte (work | talk) 02:39, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:45, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:45, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:45, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as the saying goes, I'm not a lawyer but. This article is not specially well-written from a Wikipedian standpoint, but it is reasonably well cited, and contrary to nom's first statement, it looks pretty clear that the topic meets the 'multiple reliable sources' criterion of the GNG to achieve notability, I'd say fairly easily, with The Atlantic, The Yale Law Journal, and The Columbia Science and Technology Law Review. The New York Times is correctly quoted, too, as citing a technical note on the matter. On nom's second point, that it lacks useful content, I don't recall that usefulness has ever been a notability criterion; if a topic is notable, it deserves an article, and if that's not very informative, it deserves editing. Actually, however, the article is clear and informative about the topic and its history, and it isn't hard to think of uses for the knowledge. I'd give it a Keep. Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:28, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This has been much improved since I nominated it. I'm happy to withdraw my nomination.Rathfelder (talk) 00:14, 19 December 2016 (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.