Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SCOTUSblog

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 WP:SNOW keep (non-admin closure). Pcap ping 13:02, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SCOTUSblog[edit]

Fixing b0rked nom for User:DreamGuy. Contested prod Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 22:23, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (leaning to keep): Do we think either or both of these sources [1], and [2] are independent? They are significant references that's for sure. Maybe we should ask some lawyers...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:31, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. With 249,000 Google hits, including 145 news articles, it shouldn't be too hard to find enough sources to write an article. BradV 22:37, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This young, blog-reading law student says keep. It's not quite Volokh Conspiracy, but it's one of the best-known law blogs. The Las Vegas Review-Journal wrote:

"Although many blogs fall below the credibility line of the mainstream press, there are a growing number that have the respect of those in the judicial world. Edward Adams, editor and publisher of the American Bar Association's ABA Journal, said there are more than 7,000 blogs devoted to the legal world. Among the best, he said, is the SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States) blog.

"'It's run by lawyers and they cover the Supreme Court more intensively than any news organization does, and it does a better job, too,' Adams said." November 22, 2008 [3]

That's about right, I think. This should close as keep. Cool Hand Luke 22:44, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per BradV and Cool Hand Luke. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:48, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Slightly more compelling reading than the High Court of Australia equivalent. Oh, um, I'm meant to talk about notability? Er, keep per Luke and Brad (both). Daniel (talk) 02:38, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above and per source in article before prod, Eugene Volokh at the Volokh Conspiracy.[4].John Z (talk) 04:24, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. That claim to notability should have probably been left in. I know blog aren't normally good sources, but I think that would be an expert blog—consisting almost exclusively of law professor authors and having the highest traffic of any law blog (I believe). I'll work on both this article and Volokh Conspiracy because it might be hard for outsiders to appreciate the status of specialty blogs. Cool Hand Luke 06:30, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While the coverage about the blog the itself is not that great (I've added a couple of sources to the article), the blog is often mentioned as a source in other reliable media, WaPo, NYT, etc. [5]. Pcap ping 10:34, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Coverage in reliable and verifiable sources establishes notability. Alansohn (talk) 03:04, 27 November 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.