Talk:Queensland Law Society

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Australia: Law Low‑importance

	Australia portal Queensland Law Society is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian law (assessed as Low-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Removal of CSD tag

There's a precedent which indicates that a "State Bar Association" in the US is inherently notable, and this is essentially the Australian equivalent thereof. I'm not entirely sure that it's a case of nobody being able to work as a solicitor without membership, but there's absolutely a claim of inherent notability, albeit in a sub-stub of an article. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:57, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Where is this precedent? WP:A7 also is not about notability, but "No indication of importance". I am reinstating the CSD tag as I believe it was correctly applied in good faith. Cheers, Dresken (talk) 07:26, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll hunt the exact wording up for you. Can't find it in so many words at the moment, but I came across it most recently skimming through AFD nominations, so it's out there somewhere. If we're going to debate the "importance" of the article's subject, though, then I'm happy to do so. A "peak professional body" in a state of a large country is an indication of importance. This judgement is made with all the good faith in the world, just as I'm sure that the tag was initially applied in the same spirit. I think we can both agree that a bad-faith CSD tagging would be either a flagrantly inappropriate one ("page not in English", for example) or one done to make a point. Neither is the case here. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 08:03, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The faith in tagging is not an important issue. The question is of correctness. CSD criteria are tightly and objectively worded. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:41, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. My response regarding the faith or lack thereof was purely because the point had been made. As it stands, this tag claimed a lack of importance, and this is not the case. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 09:17, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised the faith statement was addressed really. To me, the original removal statement seemed to be at odds with the reason why A7 would be applied - I questioned my decision whether to reinstate the CSD or just leave a message - and I came to the conclusion that it was both "correctly applied" and "in good faith" so I should reinstate and be clear on my reasons for doing so. I didn't believe that it would be misinterpreted to be making any statement or aspersions about what faith others thought it was made in or what faith others were operating in. I am sorry that it caused confusion or offence. While I think the second reasoning was a lot clearer than the first - with hindsight, I should have just asked my question and waited. Cheers, Dresken (talk) 11:55, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]