Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Professional support lawyer

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 20:49, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Professional support lawyer

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This job category is not independently notable. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 02:20, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 02:20, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge somewhere. It seems noteworthy, if not independently encyclopedically notable, that some lawyers have this internal research support role. Perhaps this can find a home in Law firm#Structure and promotion. BD2412 T 02:53, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@BD2412, Fad Ariff, and Onel5969: can I ask you all to take another look? I reworked the article. Lightburst (talk) 23:35, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with a merge, though I admit I wasn't sure a good target. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 02:57, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If the additional sources were used to expand the article, and included therein, I wouldn't be upset in keeping the article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:37, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I would agree with a merge if the article had better sourcing and was better written. Until then, I'm leaning towards a delete or draftify. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:16, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:10, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Lightburst (talk) 13:54, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not enough in-depth coverage to meet notability criteria.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:38, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep @Onel5969: I see sources which can be used in the article. The Law Society Gazette, Knowledge Management and the Smarter Lawyer, A Handbook for Corporate Information Professionals, The Knowledge Manager's Handbook, Kirsty McFarlane: Why professional support lawyers are growing in importance Lightburst (talk) 15:45, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:16, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Due to the sources mentioned by Lightburst. The article is currently in poor shape, so hopefully someone will overhaul it if it is kept. MrsSnoozyTurtle 05:16, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The sources found by Lightburst are sufficient for GNG. WJ94 (talk) 13:55, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.