Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Law Practice Today
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
— User:TedFrank, 02:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Stance: delete
Cited policy: WP:SYN||WP:N||WP:BITE (Wikipedia:No original research)