Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nova Scotia Barristers' Society

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 Keep. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:13, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nova Scotia Barristers' Society

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

Self organisation for lawyers. This two liner article states nothing what makes them notable. On internet just over *19.000 hits (including own website and members) and 3 on Google News.

_talk 18:17, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep (as author). As a Bar, the organization impacts everything lawyers do in the province, from letting them practice (the famous Bar exam) to removing their ability to do so, setting the cadre and guidelines on professional conduct, etc. As such, I believe it is inherently notable, much like a court system would be. Yes, it's a stub, and I don't have time nor the interest to research the matter and to make a more complete article out of it. I have provided two news references where the Bar is mentioned prominently. Regardless of my view that the Society is inherently notable as the statutory body for NS lawyers, if the CBC, CTV, the The Chronicle Herald and other media outlets think the NSBS is worthy enough to make the news, it passes
WP:GNG. I have only researched in some specific media outlets, but I'm sure with more focused research one could come up with more evidence of notability. Best regards. CharlieEchoTango (talk) 18:56, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy Keep - passes GNG; in fact, I would be quite surprised to learn of any state/provincial bar that doesn't. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 19:12, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As far as I know every article is judged on his own merits. The article is just two sentences long and fails to tell what makes it notable. To keep it because there are articles like this, is no valid reason. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a collection of data.
  _talk 21:26, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  - It clearly asserts notability. In fact, remarkably for a stub, each phrase is a claim of notability and is referenced. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 21:41, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - In your opinion. To me, it just tells what they are supposed to do by their Charter. Not what makes them special, outstanding or notable.
      _talk 22:48, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
      ]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 19:17, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

list of Nova Scotia-related deletion discussions. Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 19:17, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 19:17, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but a comment - I think that this is probably notable for a number of reasons, but it's not notable simply because it is inherently so (bar associations are not the same as the licensing bar, depending on the jurisdiction; I don't know how Canada works, but in the U.S. most bar associations are private organizations that licensed attorneys ("members of the bar") may or may not be required to join, and there's nothing inherently notable about that), nor is it not because it simply doesn't have a lot of google hits. AfD needs to be based around
speedy keeping and many of them imply some bad faith in the nomination. This is not a speedy keep candidate by any stretch of those guidelines. It is, however, a keep imho. Shadowjams (talk) 20:47, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
- Sorry, but my understanding of
  WP:SNOW decision. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 21:01, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  I see 5 reasons for speedy keep, and unless I am wrong, no one applies here...
  _talk 21:26, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  As I said, I'm not referring to
  WP:SK in my comment. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 21:39, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Keep: Notable, passes policy. ~~Ebe123~~ → report on my contribs. 23:13, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Easily meets
WP:N; in addition to what has already been noted, I'm seeing plenty of coverage in The Canadian Press
. A few examples:
- ... and so on... Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:21, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm surprised the article was nominated AFTER sources were added to the original stub. Sourcing is easily found to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:15, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sources show notability. SL93 (talk) 23:30, 26 November 2011 (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.