Jump to content

Talk:Griffith Law School

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Notability

[edit]

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)[reply]

The above is an oddly intemperate review and the judgment of a "complete" lack is especially unusual. Wikipedia features 2.5 million entries, of which most are considerably less notable than a major law school in Australia. There are entries on shopping centres, sport coaches, swimmers who competed and took no medals in the Olympics in 1952, etc. Please leave this law school site alone, as you have left other law schools alone. The information here, most of which is completely uncontroversial, is useful to students researching institutions.

Please WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, you haven't actually stated any reasons for notability of this law school. Michellecrisp (talk) 13:32, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Why would you recommend DELETION in response to one user's disagreement with your initial request for more information? Are you now 100% certain that the law school is not notable? Who are you to say so? Why the mean-spiritedness? What is the point of this?

"Notability" is not a concept that exists in a vacuum. Nor is the concept well described, in the context of wikipedia, by the link you cited. Notability is a matter of comparison and degree. Note the examples I gave--shopping centres and the like. These were comparisons. They help establish what is meant by notability. There is information in the article on the law school that helps us determine whether, in comparison with the examples I gave, the law school is notable.

The bottom line is, (1) notability is comparative, and your picking on this law school is capricious. (It is .) (2) You are evidently ANGRY about this disagreement--hence recommending DELETION. This is hardly the way to deal impartially with other people's work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Osloinsummertime (talk • contribs) 06:45, 21 June 2008 (UTC) well-known and well-respected in the legal community in Australia. Its members have published in countless independent, third-party publications This is a classic conflict on wikipedia ("Specific criticisms include the encyclopedia's exposure to obvious or subtle vandalism, attempts by strongly opinionated editors to dominate articles, inaccurate or sometimes non-existent sourcing for controversial assertions in articles, and edit wars and other types of nonconstructive conflict among editors.") The solution of deleting an article to try to win an editing battle is inappropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Osloinsummertime (talk • contribs) 06:55, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Avoiding_common_mistakes#Deleting... Osloinsummertime (talk) 07:03, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Why don't you try responding to my arguments, rather than attacking me. Please give it a try. Osloinsummertime (talk) 21:57, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Numerous sources strengthen the notability of the subject. as per WP:V. Michellecrisp (talk) 00:24, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Fair use of Image:Griffith University logo.png

[edit]

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)[reply]

Merge proposal

[edit]

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)[reply]
  • Support merge Although I originally proposed deletion, I do support merging with elements of this article retained in the Griffith Uni article. Michellecrisp (talk) 05:47, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leave it alone I hate to be a broken record, but could we see specific reasons given to back up conclusions in these discussions? The law school article has several sections and a good amount of information; this would overwhelm the main university site. Since WP decided overwhelmingly not to delete the law school site, much of the material has been adjudged important enough to keep. Why bother with the inelegant editing move of stuffing all the same information into another article? Why make it harder to search and find? - Oslo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.185.30.251 (talk) 11:26, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merge and given the overwhelming consensus for a merge at the AfD this . Precedentdiscussion is a bit irrelevant. All sourced information should be moved as soon as possible and this page redirected. -- Mattinbgn\talk 22:20, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The merge result was mixed, not a consensus overwhelming or otherwise. - Oslo
  • Oppose merge - there can be many reasons for a page merge; strongly overlapping content, to provide essential context, the subsidiary article being too small for a standalone page etc but I have not seen a convincing argument in this case. Frankly, the main priority is to develop the main article which requires substantial expansion. Pending that, merging in the Law School would overbalance the main page. TerriersFan (talk) 00:11, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merge. As a long-graduated alumnus of the University of New South Wales law school I can attest to the autonomy of Australian law schools vis-à-vis their university affiliation, though perhaps Griffith's law school is not quite so autonomous as that of the University of Sydney, which is adjacent to the Law Courts and long distant from the main campus. Numerous professional colleagues of mine here in Brisbane are alumni or sessional lecturers at Griffith law school, though, and they concur in the view that the law school is institutionally and by reputation distinct. Some of the faculties at Griffith, be it said, are perhaps not yet of international stature; the law school, however, is increasingly an important institution in its own right, as evidenced by the number of prominent Queensland lawyers who qualified there and by the growing literature of publications by Griffith law school academics. Masalai (talk) 14:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: So... aside from your personal experiences, why shouldn't we merge this? — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 16:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - sorry, but I don't think that this is a fair response. You may well consider that the reasons given are not strong enough to avoid a merge, fine I have no problem with that, but the the reasons "the autonomy of Australian law schools vis-à-vis their university affiliation" and "the law school is institutionally and by reputation distinct" are valid considerations that should be addressed with a view to refutation and not dismissed out of hand. TerriersFan (talk) 19:39, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment My problem with merging is that Wikipedia itself potentially powerfully confers notability on institutions. Given the power and potential self-fulfilling prophecy of Wikipedia recognition, one needs a great deal of information before it is appropriate to issue a judgment about a school. Most importantly, the standard for judgment is inherently ambiguous. Perceived status seems especially important. But status is a nebulous, impressionistic quality, and not one that is necessarily appropriate as a basis for judgment in Wikipedia.(According to my own admittedly original knowledge, Griffith Law School is often very highly rated by observers; but how can we prove a cultural fact such as this?) I think there is a tendency to assume the higher status of older schools, and to judge younger schools accordingly. This does a disservice to the aims of Wikipedia. - Oslo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.185.30.251 (talk) 21:58, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment One last point: There is a very strong political association with law schools. For example, Griffith is considered a highly progressive school. This is another reason why we should tread very carefully when challenging (implicitly or otherwise) the status/notability of schools. It moves editing debates perilously close to insoluble political conflict. - Oslo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.185.30.251 (talk) 22:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment A lot of original research here "they concur in the view that the law school is institutionally and by reputation distinct". We need reliable sources to back this up not hearsay. Michellecrisp (talk) 23:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merge This is a university department, and doesn't really exist independantly of its university. WP:UNDUE shouldn't be a problem as a lot of the material here isn't worth keeping (eg, the staff, student societies and notable alumni. The description of the qualifications offered also seems totally unremarkable for an Australian university and probably isn't worth keeping either). Nick Dowling (talk) 00:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Based on the discussion both here and on the AfD, I see enough consensus to merge the pages. I've done so; please take a look and tell me what you think. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 00:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Thanks for the alert. Reverted text with WP:BRD in mind. Regards, WWGB (talk) 02:37, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

***Comment*** Surely this can be solved easily by referring to the precedent (WP:OSE) of several other Australian law schools having their own pages (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Griffith_University_Law_School) . Precedent exists for GU Law School to have a separate page, as the law schools of many other Australian universities already have their own pages. If we delete/merge GU Law School's page, we might as well apply the same set of shears to the pages of other law schools. 115.130.4.103 (talk) 17:03, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
That page does not mention any such principle. Sorry, Orderinchaos. 119.12.95.144 (talk) 10:54, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

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)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Griffith Law School. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:36, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:53, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Griffith_Law_School&oldid=1212557458"