Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Refresher

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. I see a consensus now to Keep after new sources were located. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:32, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Refresher

[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)

No mentions with a Google search and searches on legal glossary websites TheManInTheBlackHat (Talk) 06:19, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. TheManInTheBlackHat (Talk) 06:19, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly sourced. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:14, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A quick web search shows that this is a genuine term term [1] [2], it is used by law firms to describe their fee structure, [3] [4] [5] and is recognised by the courts [6]. But none of that takes this article beyond a DICDEF and the article ought to go for that reason. -- D'n'B-t -- 17:31, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:33, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Soft redirect to wiktionary there is nothing other than a dictionary deifnition here, and there is no reason to expect there ever will be. Walsh90210 (talk) 19:51, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article is now more than a dictionary definition. It took literally a few minutes to add commentary from one of the many, many scholarly and journalistic sources. And there is an enormous amount of commentary still to add. James500 (talk) 10:38, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies GNG easily and by an exceptionally wide margin with massive coverage in many books and periodical articles. A search for refresher+barrister or for "refresher fee(s)" or for "right to a refresher" in Google Books, Google Scholar and the Internet Archive produces massive coverage in treatises and periodical articles. You can find, for example, entire periodical articles on the subject eg this article or this article or this article, or this article that reprints large portions of two other entire articles on barristers' refreshers, one article from Evening Standard and one article from The Times (see the text in small print). This is not surprising since lawyers' fees and costs are a sector of the national economy of immense practical and social importance due to the enormous amount of money that sector of the economy represents. The article can be easily expanded beyond a definition, has been expanded beyond a definition, and can be expanded much further. As a general rule, if a topic has an article in Encyclopædia Britannica, it will usually have a massive amount of coverage in books and periodical articles, because Britannica does not normally include non-notable topics, so you need to conduct a proper search of books and periodicals. It is not enough to do "a Google search" or "searches on legal glossary websites" or "a quick web search". Anyway, in addition to the six full periodical articles listed in this AfD, I have added some additional sources to the article and I will add more if I have time. James500 (talk) 08:54, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. Perfectly good legal stub, now. Bearian (talk) 03:58, 15 August 2024 (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.