Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/T14

Add links
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 of the debate was delete. SushiGeek 22:38, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Top Fourteen[edit]

Neologism. Only reference is to a blogger's website. Non-notable slang used only on a small number of online discussion boards Interestingstuffadder 21:39, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: May I remind you that the objective of wikipedia it to provide authoritative and verifiable sources for the information that is presented in articles. [1] The sources that appear when this google search is run seem to be almost exclusively internet message boards. That is, these were merely opinions of a small group of individuals, posted in a forum for personal opinion (bulletin board). The citations provided are far from authoritative, nor factually verifiable. Please refer to wikipedia policies on reliable sources. [2]Interestingstuffadder 22:31, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then I guess you should mark all the terms linked on the neologism page for deletion. Looks like there are several hundred exceptions to this rule. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 160.39.31.71 (talk • contribs) .
  • Keep. For substantially the same reasons cited in the preceding comment.160.39.31.71 05:34, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As demonstrated above this term is not some obscure internet phenomenon but rather is widely used among prospective law students, actual law students and to a lesser extent, actual lawyers. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.72.130.244 (talk • contribs) .
  • Weak keep; better to merge its content with law school or college rankings. This usage isn't common, but it wasn't made up on xoxo or lsd.
The only reason people care about "T14" is because the top 14 law schools (unlike, say 25) have been remarkably stable in the past decade or so, leading to the conception among some that there are 14 schools that are, far and away, better than the rest. Of course, the actual difference between 14 and 15 is pretty small. One of the reasons Leiter opposes T14 is because he is a prof at #15 UTexas. Czar Dragon 00:27, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Texas is actually 16th now, though Leiter did talk about the probably future rise of the "top 16" shortly before the recent USNews rankings came out. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 160.39.31.71 (talk • contribs) .
  • Keep but add more accurate definition that it is a really limited term used by a specific message board populated by anonymous posters with terrible grades from low ranking schools who use fake IDs to pretend that (a) they go to one of the so-called "prestigous" schools and (b) compensate for appalingly poor grades at the schools that they do attend. Keep with heavy emphasis on the absolute lack of credibility the term, has with any real practitioner of law. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.5.33.167 (talk • contribs) .
  • Warning -- possible coordinated effort: this deletion debate is being discussed at one of the very message boards that is the source of this neologism. [3] Beware of biased attempts to influence this debate, sockpuppetry, anonymous edits, trolling and other shenanigans. Interestingstuffadder 00:30, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Once again, the message boards are not the source of this term. SUNY Binghamton used the term in a press release almost a year before any of the message boards mentioned here were created. There were also several pages devoted to the term in Robert Miller's Law School Confidential and Richard Montauk's How to Get Into The Top Law Schools, both of which had their first editions released before any of these message boards came into existence. This term has been commonly used by those in the law school community for almost 15 years now, and is hardly some kind of new internet jargon. 66.28.244.132 00:42, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is actually a valid, rather useful term. There are an easily discernible 14 "national" law schools, and in the legal industry, "top 14" (or T14) is helpful shorthand. Also, my apologies: I'm a contributor, as you may see from my history, but this is the first time I've chimed in on a deletion discussion. Excuse me if I've posted this in the wrong spot or something. jtl9000
  • Keep. As a student applying to law school, I've encountered the term "top 14" in discussions with prelaw advisors, on various internet message boards, speaking with current law students, and listening to admissions officials. Thus, it is quite a common phrase. But more than just a phrase, it is an actual group of schools characterized by 20 years of consistent rankings in published news sources which is in turn derived from the opinions of judges, lawyers, and meaningful statistics (selectivity, job placement, etc.). Note that a law school professor (Brian Leiter) linked in the web resources section of the article rails against the prevalence of this term. This should suffice to show it is in fact pervasive. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.229.201.180 (talk • contribs) .
  • Keep This appears in books, on blogs, on discussion boards, and is even referenced by law professors who dislike it (e.g. Brian Leiter). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.42.23.207 (talk • contribs) .
  • Comment: reopening as improperly closed -- the required 5 day period did not elapse (actually, not even 24 hours elapsed)...a longer period is further justified by strong interest from inecperienced users and a documented coordinated effort to influence this debate (see my comments above). Interestingstuffadder 22:08, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep*: Respectfully, to call something this well documented a neologism seems in error. The fact that it is generally thrown around by better educated lawyers and students does not in and of itself deny it a place in Wikipedia. Indeed, Wikipedia should be open to compiling well executed articles on field jargon, as they make these terms more accessible to those outside a given area of study. The same holds for medicine, finance, military doctrine, etcetera, where numerous articles of comparable “obscurity” exist. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 140.247.125.153 (talk • contribs) .
  • Delete. Not cited in any media outlets I can find. This seems to be an attempt to use wikipedia to legitimize a point. If it is truly so imperative it will be recreated with better sourcing down the road. For now, seems to be an experiement in wikiengineering the truth. -- cmh 02:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per user:cmh. The only references to this term I can find lie within a very limited universe of law school related bulletin boards and blogs. Though this term is used a lot in those places, limited use in non notable forums does not equal notability. This seems very much like a neologism. Also, I hope whichever admin eventually closes this debate takes into account that many of the above keep votes resulted from the above mentioned coordinated effort. Captaintruth 03:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Anyone who spent even half a minute looking at the links in 66.28.244.132's contribution could see that these criticisms are baseless. Again, if we're going to include less-notable and concrete terms like Little Ivy and Public Ivy, this article unquestionably merits inclusion.160.39.31.71 03:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If you do not think those articles belong on Wikipedia, feel free to nominate them for deletion. The existence of some questionable articles is hardly a rationale for including more. Interestingstuffadder 04:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Those articles have already withstood deletion attempts. Deleting this article would be an arbitrary deviation from established precedent.160.39.31.71 05:02, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see no precedent here. The other entries are not relevant to the discussion here which is on developing consensus from editors on the topic of this page. Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms suggests that neologisms can be deleted and protologisms should be deleted. Just because a neologism is in use doesn't make it encyclopedic. -- cmh 05:06, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How can you not see any precedent? Literally hundreds of "neologisms" are well-established and accepted with significantly less verification of their widespread use. At least four books, two college career services sites and a law professor, to say nothing of the literally thousands of discussion forum hits, have been cited in support of keeping this. That's more than sufficient.160.39.31.71 05:34, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms suggests that neologisms can be deleted and protologisms should be deleted. Just because a neologism is in use doesn't make it encyclopedic. -- cmh 15:39, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment::: Respectfully, I question the grounds on which it is being called a neologism. It’s not new. This term emerged in early 1990’s and has very strong empirical backing. Year in and year out U.S. News, along with major law school admissions commentators, have given it implicit or direct credence. The article documents this.

Moreover, it appears that Wikipedia is increasingly being hijacked by a group of overly dedicated editors. These individuals, rather than providing commentary in areas which they are actually informed, attempt to monitor the whole institution at large. While their actions warrant merit with respect to cleaning up vandalism or removing the posting of images not under copyright, they are often poor judges of the internal merits of pages.

Indeed, the claim is here that there has been a coordinated effort to preserve the page, by references to its deletion entry on xoxohth.com and lawschoolnumbers.com. While I can find no references by a search of said sites, I will say that if there was one, so be it. Such a posting only brings many individuals from the legal world to the page, who can subsequently weigh in on its accuracy. If such a term was indeed bunk, there would likely be many more votes for deletion than their currently are from actual members of the law profession, as opposed to registered wikipedians. Moreover, where the term appears in specific law school Wikipedia entries (see gulc, the term has not been removed (and they, indeed, are also monitored by a large number of students, faculty, lawyers, so on). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 140.247.125.148 (talk • contribs) .

You do not have an account on wikipedia, and from that I surmise that you aren't experienced in the way it works. I don't mean this to be offensive, but rather just to note that others here may understand the process more clearly due to their experience. Wiki here implies collective consensus in both writing but also in managing the encyclopedia. The processes evolve over time, but have arrived at where they are today after a long long road involving the consensus of thousands of people. The process may not be perfect, but it is working OK. I understand that you feel the term under discussion here has widespread usage and is therefore encyclopedic. You see many lawyers using the term, feel it is established, and therefore feel that wikipedia should have a page about it. You have pulled together many facts about this term, and feel that as you have an understanding of it you are sure that it fits with Wikipedia. You need to remember that here at wikipedia we have a policy that we do not do original research and the understanding that I've attributed to you is original research. Wikipedia is a tertiary source, and must cite secondary sources only in determining whether to keep an article. The arguments described above are all arguments based on primary research, namely going out to find blogs and books that use the term. I see no references to books about the term, or papers that treat the usage of the term. Accordingly the term is not ready yet for wikipedia. It may be in time, but not now. The term does not need to be in Wikipedia in order to be a "true" term. You seem quite skilled in writing, may I suggest creating a wikipedia account and working on a few other pages for a while. IMHO I think we must let this one go. -- cmh 22:22, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


This is not original research. Please familizarize yourself with the term before you use it. If someone were trying to create the idea of a "top 14" by simply citing the USNews rankings and making some kind of an argument, that would be original research. Simply reporting on the existence and widespread-usage of the term while citing numerous examples of such usage is not.160.39.31.71 23:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually you are wrong. Research based on primary sources (such as those you cited) is original research. Non-original research would rely on secondary sources. Interestingstuffadder 00:58, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please click on this link: Wikipedia:Original research. Scroll down the screen until you reach the section entitled What is excluded?. Read the final point. Then click on the following link: Wikipedia:Reliable sources. -- cmh 01:18, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a helpful quote for you guys from the Wikipedia policy: "Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed. However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged. All articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from published primary and secondary sources. This is not 'original research'; it is 'source-based research', and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia." This article is not inventing a term. It is not presenting any original analysis or criticism of the term or its use. This is a non-issue. The desperation to delete an article despite an obvious consensus among informed individuals and overwhelming evidence supporting its inclusion really helps illustrate the overzealous editor problem cited above.160.39.31.71 01:37, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why would anyone want to delete this term? T14 refers to schools that have NEVER been ranked out of the top 14 since the inception of the US News and World Report Rankings began.

Keep! Not to get philosophical but obviously if there is such a debate about this term than it is in fact an existing "term"; "phrase"; "expression"; "idiom" or whatever you want to call it. Who cares if its "original research"? Some people (like me) use Wikipedia to look up definitions of words they haven't heard of and this site helps people figure out the definitions of terms that they dont already know. (Plus, as other posters have already indicated T14 is commonly used) This is precisely what encyclopedias are supposed to do: give you the the definition and relevant information of a term,

No, that is not what encyclopedias are supposed to do; that is what dictionaries are supposed to do. Interestingstuffadder 05:58, 16 April 2006 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/T14&oldid=1138813817"