Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CanLII

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. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 12:25, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CanLII

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

As an article, it feels a bit spammy - but I don't think it's quite enough to G11 the article. As an institution, however, I'm not sure if notability can be taken with what's present. A quick Google search doesn't turn up anything usable for the article. So submitted. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 06:41, 19 January 2012 (UTC) Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 06:41, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems notable to me, not mainly as an institution, but as a project (for providing free access to Canadian Law). Here are a few links: [1], [2], [3], [4]. I'm not sure if all of them are usable in the article, but I guess someone with more background knowledge on the subject can find more info about this subject. Razvan Socol (talk) 06:54, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:16, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:16, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Agree that the quality of the article would benefit from some attention, but its notability as either an institution or a project is plainly evident just from links. The internal WP links and Google Scholar results alone demonstrate the degree to which others rely on the information presented at the host site. Razvan Socol has identified a handful of links,and google results (scholar or otherwise) show a wide variety of academic, government and private sites pointing back to its content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lawtalker11 (talk • contribs) 01:06, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

-sorry, i didn't sign my comment. I'm new to this. Still figuring out how all the buttons work!Lawtalker11 (talk) 01:09, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose the deletion of this article. I do not understand why the nominator brought this article to AfD instead of proposing its merger into Free Access to Law Movement. Because it is never going to be deleted on notability grounds alone while the parent article, to which it could be redirected, continues to exist. James500 (talk) 02:32, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, see, e.g., [5], [6], [7] and [8], as well as those cited by Razvan Socol. TJRC (talk) 23:29, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. TJRC (talk) 23:36, 20 January 2012 (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.