Deletion of Law Practice Today

Comment: There has ''not'' been significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject: there has been an occasional link in an indiscriminate blogroll.  Editor is working in good faith, but doesn't understand Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and uses footnotes in a brief-writing, rather than encyclopedic, style: all the references are either dubious stretches claiming endorsements that don't exist or violations of .  At best, the subject merits a single line in the Law Practice (magazine)|Law Practice article, except that article would probably also flunk , so perhaps it merits a single line plus a single hyperlink in the ABA article.  The only thing keeping this from a speedy delete is , but I'm concerned that the editor continues to fail to get the point
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYN||WP:N||WP:BITE)

Comment: this |vanispamcruftisement. See #Law_Practice_Today__.28history.7CWatchlist_this_article.7Cunwatch.29_.5Bwatchlist.3F.5D|here for some more discussion on the issue
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:VSCA||WP:COIN)