Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ontario Paralegal

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. Bishonen | talk 20:56, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ontario Paralegal[edit]

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

Article which is written much more like an informational brochure than an encyclopedia article -- the bulk of the article consists of bulleted lists of the names of rules of conduct and by-laws that govern the profession, rather than substantive content about the profession. And the sourcing is almost entirely to the Law Society's own primary source content about it, rather than reliable source coverage of it -- the only independent source here is just a general "how to find and hire a paralegal" article of the type that any newspaper in any province, state or country that has paralegals could publish for reader education purposes, and which doesn't actually address any reason why the concept of "Ontario Paralegal" might actually warrant a standalone article as a separate topic from the general concept of paralegal. There are admittedly some differences in the way paralegals are licensed and regulated in Ontario, but not enough that it would actually constitute a separate topic -- a brief, properly sourced subsection in the main article on paralegals is all we really need, and an article that reads like a LSUC backgrounder pamphlet is not encyclopedic content. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 19:07, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 20:53, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 20:53, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:34, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - NOTHOWTO, and per Bearcat. John from Idegon (talk) 02:38, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and above editor. All the pertinent info in the article is already included in the Canada section of the Paralegal article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:47, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unlikely needed, as mentioned. SwisterTwister talk 20:49, 18 February 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.