Talk:Griffith Law School

message: There is a complete lack of reliable, third-party sources and references to verify the notability of this law school. Simply being a law school of a major university is not enough. Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_%28organizations_and_companies%29#Primary_criterion Michellecrisp (talk) 12:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, you haven't actually stated any reasons for notability of this law school. Michellecrisp (talk) 13:32, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Your single purpose editing gives the complete impression of bias and attachment to the subject and classic WP:OWN. Your claim of "well-known and well-respected in the legal community in Australia. Its members have published in countless independent, third-party publications" has not been backed up with independent third party reliable sources in the article. Until such, the tags remain, feel free to add references. Michellecrisp (talk) 14:43, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia guidelines: "Before nominating a recently created article, please consider that many good articles started their Wikilife in pretty bad shape. Unless it is obviously a hopeless case, consider sharing your reservations with the article creator, mentioning your concerns on the article's discussion page, and/or adding a "cleanup" template, instead of bringing the article to AfD. If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD." Osloinsummertime (talk) 22:37, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The article has been around since October 25, 2006. My advice to you is to register your complaint on the AfD page here. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 22:45, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I strongly agree with Helloannyong, this article has existed for over 1.5 years yet lacks independent third party sources to establish its notability. If the article had only existed for 2 months I would not have nominated it for deletion. You are welcome to comment/contest this deletion. Michellecrisp (talk) 05:46, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Michellecrisp, you've got to address why you think the independent primary sources added are not independent primary sources. The SSRN citation is about as authoritative as you can get on this subject. Please don't just conclude; address the evidence.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Osloinsummertime (talk • contribs) 22:05, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Numerous sources strengthen the notability of the subject. as per WP:V. Michellecrisp (talk) 00:24, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the AfD takes cares of the notability issue, so I don't think the tag is necessary. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 01:11, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Not Numerous-- This is getting a little strange. The page you cite says nothing about "numerous" sources, and indeed its gist suggests nothing of the sort. Why are you pushing this then? The third opinion has now said the tag should go, so I will keep it deleted.Osloinsummertime (talk) 01:32, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Notability

message: Per WP:AFD, any article can be put up for deletion. The AfD is already started, so don't remove the tag from this page. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 22:12, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia guidelines: "Before nominating a recently created article, please consider that many good articles started their Wikilife in pretty bad shape. Unless it is obviously a hopeless case, consider sharing your reservations with the article creator, mentioning your concerns on the article's discussion page, and/or adding a "cleanup" template, instead of bringing the article to AfD. If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD." Osloinsummertime (talk) 22:37, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The article has been around since October 25, 2006. My advice to you is to register your complaint on the AfD page here. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 22:45, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I strongly agree with Helloannyong, this article has existed for over 1.5 years yet lacks independent third party sources to establish its notability. If the article had only existed for 2 months I would not have nominated it for deletion. You are welcome to comment/contest this deletion. Michellecrisp (talk) 05:46, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Michellecrisp, you've got to address why you think the independent primary sources added are not independent primary sources. The SSRN citation is about as authoritative as you can get on this subject. Please don't just conclude; address the evidence.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Osloinsummertime (talk • contribs) 22:05, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Numerous sources strengthen the notability of the subject. as per WP:V. Michellecrisp (talk) 00:24, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the AfD takes cares of the notability issue, so I don't think the tag is necessary. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 01:11, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Not Numerous-- This is getting a little strange. The page you cite says nothing about "numerous" sources, and indeed its gist suggests nothing of the sort. Why are you pushing this then? The third opinion has now said the tag should go, so I will keep it deleted.Osloinsummertime (talk) 01:32, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Third opinion

message: This page includes a logo of an organization, item, or event, and is protected by copyright and/or trademark. It is believed that the use of low-resolution images on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation, of logos for certain uses involving identification and critical commentary may qualify as fair use under United States copyright law. Any other uses of this image, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, may be copyright infringement. Certain commercial use of this image may also be trademark infringement. See Wikipedia:Non-free content and Wikipedia:Logos.
This image MUST have an accompanying fair use rationale which must be unique to the usage of THIS image in EACH article in which it is used. Farside6 (talk) 18:09, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use of Image:Griffith University logo.png

message: So it's been proposed that we merge this article into Griffith University. This is where we'll discuss.
*Support merge. In the AFD for this article, several people mentioned a merge. I don't think there's really enough on this page to support its existence on its own, but it'd be fine as a section of the main page. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 05:43, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I really think this action is unwarranted at this time. With four supporters of merge and three opponents on this page, it is a "no consensus" position. In such cases, the status quo remains. I'm restoring the article. WWGB (talk) 01:21, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: However, do single purpose account votes hold equal weight? this merge discussion has only be opened for 3 days. Suggest wait a few more days before closing it off. Although I'm sure 1 person will object to this. Michellecrisp (talk) 02:08, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

text: So now there's a lot of redundant text between this article and the main Griffith University page. Are you going to revert my edits there as well? — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 02:30, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the alert. Reverted text with WP:BRD in mind. Regards, WWGB (talk) 02:37, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia doesn't operate by the law of precedent. I think there's a fair argument for a merge. Orderinchaos 11:23, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

text: That page does not mention any such principle. Sorry, Orderinchaos. 119.12.95.144 (talk) 10:54, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge proposal 

message: The image :Image:Griffith University logo.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here.  In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page.  Please check
:* That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
:* That this article is linked to from the image description page.
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --07:10, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Image copyright problem with Image:Griffith University logo.png

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Griffith Law School. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070923081510/http://www.griffith.edu.au/er/gazette/brighterfuture/alumni/brettmason.html to http://www.griffith.edu.au/er/gazette/brighterfuture/alumni/brettmason.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:36, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Griffith Law School. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080904231037/http://www3.griffith.edu.au/03/ertiki/tiki-read_article.php?articleId=12301 to http://www3.griffith.edu.au/03/ertiki/tiki-read_article.php?articleId=12301
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:53, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified