Talk:Tulane University Law School/Archives/2015

Partners at Vault's Top-100-Most-Prestigious Law Firms

I think this section should be removed. It is nothing more than a directory of people that have graduated from Tulane Law School without any specific claim of notability. Wikipedia is not a directory. The editor who has reverted my removal twice stated that notability pertains to the topic of articles, not the content. That is true, as stated in WP:N. However, notability for people adds to this criteria. It states:

"Several articles contain or stand alone as lists of people - for instance, usually an article on a college includes or links to a list of notable alumni. Such lists are not intended to contain everyone (e.g. not all people who ever graduated from the school). Instead, inclusion on the list should be determined by the criteria above."

The above criteria it references are basic criteria and additional criteria. I don't believe that the individuals in this list meet these criteria. Being a partner at a law firm is not in and of itself notable, there are thousands of law partners, even at the "most prestigious" law firms. VerruckteDan (talk) 21:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

this is clearly not supportable material & I have removed it. The list of distinguished alumni can only include people with Wikipedia articles of their own, or clearly qualified for them, such as federal judges. It is possible that some of these people might be sufficiently distinguished, but the first step is to write the articles and get them accepted. 3rd party independent reliable published sources, print or online (but not blogs or press releases, or material based on press releases) will be needed to show their notability in each individual case. Merely being listed on a register of notable lawyers is not enough. DGG (talk) 04:15, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

The list must stay. This is the exact type of information that makes Wikipedia so great. Many people have contributed to this list for the last year or so that it has been up. Many people at the Tulane University Law School talk about it. It strikes me as interesting that someone (one person!) totally unrelated to the school finds it necessary to advocate removing this list, repeatedly. If you don't like the information, I suggest skipping over it. Many current students, applicants, and practicing Tulane Law alums can use this info in their educational/career planning. Just because you don't find it useful doesn't mean that nobody else does. There are no explicit rules suggesting that this list is inappropriate. Why is it that you find this information so troublesome? Is there something about it that you don't like? I am sorry if this is the case. I am sorry if it upsets you that our alums go to cities X,Y, and Z, rather than A,B, and C. I am sorry if your school does not send as many alums into the Vault top 100. The list is 100% accurate, reveals info that cannot be found elsewhere, and contains valuable information that people can use to plan their lives; I am sorry, but I think it is necessary to err on the side of disclosure here, rather than deletion. Your interest in the school is appreciated. It is good to have a wide-variety of editors. However, this list should remain in place. Thank you.--- Tulane Law student

The V100 list discussion is also here: User talk:Issueitems1. Issueitems1 (talk) 22:27, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

No. The basic definition of "notability" for all such lists is having a Wikipedia article. It is considered promotion, which we usually call "spam", to insert additional people. It's a rational practice, for how can we tell otherwise--we';d have to argue every single one of them? this rule is true not just for alumni, but for notable people from cities, companies in an industry, and every type of list of the sort. (See WP:LIST for our general rules) Since i share the great general interest in removing spam, I check a whole range of other articles as I notice them. (I watch about a thousand, actually, like many experienced people here.) Since I do know something about universities, they are among the type of articles I look at particularly. I haven't the least particular interest in this particular school, except that since we have a great many articles on Louisiana politicians, it does come up a good deal. I couldn't care less what cities particular people find careers in, except that we'll list them if they are notable, but not otherwise. I appreciate your ingenuity in finding a criterion, but it isn't ours.

The Wikipedia pages on Toulane is not intended s a career planning page for Toulane alumni--the school has a web site for the purpose. This is a general encyclopedia, where it is assumed people will want to know about material of general interest. If it only concerns the alumni of the school, or students, or prospective students, that's exactly the sort of material that does not belong in an encyclopedia.

I have put a notice about this problem at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Universities. I expect there will be some comments there or here or on my talk page. DGG (talk) 05:21, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Tulane shield web.png

The image File:Tulane shield web.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.

The following images also have this problem:

• File:Johnminorwisdom.jpg
• File:Jim Garrison.jpg

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --17:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Tulane University Law School Career Development Office (CDO) and Tulane University Law Annex

these two articles are clearly not sustainable on their own, though they would each perhaps merit a line here. The alternative would be to delete them. DGG (talk) 03:59, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you DGG for calling attention to this. I would support a deletion of the Tulane University Law School Career Development Office (CDO) entry unless someone makes a pitch to keep it. I think the Annex article may be more interesting and meritorious of it's own page; perhaps additional unique info will be added to the Annex entry later on.Issueitems1 (talk) 23:50, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Template picture needed

The template (Template:Tulane University Law School) is in need of a picture. If you have an appropriate one you can help by adding it. Masteroflaww (talk) 08:01, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

List of alumni partners at major firms

I see the list has been restored; in accord with the actual consensus, I've removed it. If there are comparable lists on other universities, please let me know on my talk p., or be bold and remove them yourself. This is downright spam, per the discussion linked to above. DGG ( talk ) 20:36, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

• To amplify DGG's comment, this subject was also discussed in 2009 at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Universities/Archive 6#Notable alumni, where nearly all the editors agreed with DGG that we don't maintain this sort of list in our school articles. Since then, several editors have reverted deletions of the section, on the stated grounds that consensus had agreed to keep the list, but I can find no evidence of any such consensus. --Arxiloxos (talk) 21:45, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Career prospects content

Am I the only reader who finds it unsettling that "Career prospects" concentrates so heavily -- almost exclusively -- on salary? Surely there's much more that can be said about careers. 75.134.23.211 (talk) 17:02, 15 December 2013 (UTC)