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 delete. Cirt (talk) 01:56, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect – To LSAT – It is a natural fit. Thanks ShoesssSTalk 18:49, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully disagree. The LSAT article provides information on the LSAT itself. The purpose of the list of LSAT instruction providers is to keep the LSAT article uncluttered, while providing a resource for those seeking LSAT instruction. A google search on "lsat prep" will not easily discover a list of LSAT prep courses (try it). Furthermore, if you look at a similar article on the SAT, you will see that it has a small section entitled "Test Preparation". This is inferior because (1) it clutters the SAT page when it is not really about the SAT itself, and (2) there is not enough space to list all of the SAT providers. The result is that only a few are listed with no rhyme or reason. That is why a similar section on the LSAT page has been deleted. The best solution is to have a dedicated page.--Patent Lawyer 001 (talk) 20:20, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you be more specific? What specific category do you believe this falls under? It does not appear to fall under any of subheadings 1-6 on the WP:NOTDIR list. Please explain. Furthermore, I note that a list of LSAT prep courses is no different than a list of law schools or a list of restaurants. They are all lists of entities that sell a service. If this article is to be deleted, then Lists_of_law_schools and List_of_restaurant_chains_in_the_United_States should also be deleted, along with many others. The need for a list like this one has been repeatedly discussed on the LSAT discussion page. --Patent Lawyer 001 (talk) 20:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested by Shoesssss. Mandsford (talk) 20:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are many LSAT instruction providers. Should they ALL be listed on the main LSAT page?--Patent Lawyer 001 (talk) 20:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Why not start with the more notable and reputable ones. With a child that just graduated and passed the bar, I know there are really no more than a handful of truly reputable instruction providers. In this light, the list should not be excessively long and/or unwieldy. Thanks. ShoesssSTalk 20:54, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Care to be specific and tell us which companies are and aren't "truly reputable" in your eyes? Isn't the goal of Wikipedia to provide as much useful information as possible? Deleting the small/medium test prep companies only serves to preserve oligopolies. I don't think that helps anyone. Why not simply let the list continue to exist? That way it doesn't interfere with the main LSAT article, and the list can be as comprehensive as possible without being crammed into a place where it doesn't belong..--Patent Lawyer 001 (talk) 21:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Why not start out smaller and see if it grows to a position that it does require its own article. Thanks ShoesssSTalk 21:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I tried that, it was deleted. Check the history on LSAT--Patent Lawyer 001 (talk) 21:14, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Your links were not deleted, but rather your comments. Which in all fairness, they deserved to be removed, in that they were un-sourced and un-referenced. Please do not play semantics, but rather state your case in an unbiased manner and not through rose-colored glasses. Thanks. ShoesssSTalk 01:05, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
'Comment - Hey, I have an idea. Since you are apparently an expert on LSAT preparation (by virtue of your child having taken it), why don't you just add all of the "truly reputable" instruction providers yourself?--Patent Lawyer 001 (talk) 21:41, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Never claimed to be an expert, but I am more than happy to contribute. Regarding what is reputable and notable we do have guidelines to follow. (By the way, just click on the blue link, it will bring you to the guidelines). Personally, I believe the information is a good fit with the current article LSAT and would be an informative addition. Hence, my Merge/Redirect opinion. However, if you would prefer to fight an imaginary windmill go for it. Thanks. ShoesssSTalk 00:04, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Really? You didn't say "With a child that just graduated and passed the bar, I know there are really no more than a handful of truly reputable instruction providers."?? --Patent Lawyer 001 (talk) 20:13, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you be more specific? Saying that something is obvious doesn't make it true. Which of the 6 subheadings of WP:NOTDIR does this fall under? And how would a list of any other educational entities (e.g. everything in Lists_of_law_schools) not also fall under the same rule?--Patent Lawyer 001 (talk) 22:10, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's a list of external links intended to promote businesses that provide a service for a fee. This is exactly the kind of thing that NOTDIR is intended to prevent. In addition, such a list fails WP:NOTADVERTISING and WP:NOTLINK. What do you find unclear here? Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 23:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So you refuse to explain how it falls under WP:NOTDIR. OK. I could see the argument that this falls under WP:NOTLINK, but that is the first time you (or anyone else) has raised that issue. So lose the attitude, d-bag. --Patent Lawyer 001 (talk) 14:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's a list of external links intended to promote businesses that provide a service for a fee. This is exactly the kind of thing that NOTDIR is intended to prevent. How can I be more specific than that? Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 14:37, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
NOTDIR has 6 subheads. You could pick one and explain how this list fits. Merely stating that "This is exactly the kind of thing that NOTDIR is intended to prevent" does not explain how "this" fits within any particular language in the NOTDIR guideline. Basically, instead of focusing on the "intention" of the guidelines and the list I created, you could focus on content. That would be more helpful.--Patent Lawyer 001 (talk) 14:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(3) obviously. You are quickly heading towards WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Arguing with every single person to justify a viewpoint that only you find objectionable is not the proper way to defend an article. Do you have a vested interest in one of the companies in the list? Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 15:01, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Um, you finally pick a specific section after all this argument, and then simultaneously accuse me of "refusing to get the point"? You can't accuse someone of "refusing to get the point" at the same time that you FINALLY GET TO YOUR POINT.--Patent Lawyer 001 (talk) 15:29, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You may want to read the introductory paragraph under "Content" on WP:NOT, which states, "The examples under each section are not intended to be exhaustive." Deor (talk) 17:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You already stated that you think it fits under subheading (3). So what is your point now?--Patent Lawyer 001 (talk) 17:57, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, I didn't state that. 18:58, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Oh. What are you even doing in this conversation? GTFO.--Patent Lawyer 001 (talk) 20:10, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please try to stay civil. The rules on civility here are not much different than the RPC found in many states. Mandsford (talk) 20:53, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This does not appear to be anything more than a directory of people providing a service. The fact that only two have Wikipedia articles merely helps this conclusion. DJ Clayworth (talk) 22:12, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, thanks for coming here with a blatantly obvious personal vendetta (talk). You're right it is a directory of people/companies providing a service. So is this: List_of_restaurant_chains and this: List_of_insurance_companies and this List_of_banks, etc. etc. etc. Why don't you contribute something instead of always trying to destroy other people's contributions? --Patent Lawyer 001 (talk) 22:22, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTLINK. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and as such is not in the business of "providing a resource for those seeking LSAT instruction." Deor (talk) 01:21, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone please explain to me how a list of LSAT prep companies is any different than the List_of_asset_management_firms, or the List_of_South_Korean_retailers, or any of the other lists of businesses at [1] or [2]?? I'm really feeling like this is more about shutting "noobs" out of Wikipedia than it is about adherence to any actual principle. The conclusory arguments in favor of deletion are a dead give-away.
The difference is that the other two lists that you've mentioned haven't been nominated for deletion. Both lists are low quality-- unsourced, indiscriminate, remarkably uninformative-- and they could be brought here to the snake pit if someone wanted to do so. Around here, what they refer to as "other crap exists" (Wikipedia's wording, not mine) is an argument that gets shot down right away. If the outcome of this discussion were "merge", then it would provide you the opportunity to mention the subject of instruction providers within the body of the LSAT article, and provide some precedent to avoid having someone try to edit that information out. Mandsford (talk) 21:15, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mandsford: Thank you for at least addressing my questions/arguments, and not resorting to ad hominem accusations and vague/conclusory statements. I'm glad someone around here finally had the intelligence and courtesy to do so.--Patent Lawyer 001 (talk) 00:03, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, been there, done that. I think that the topic of LSAT preparation classes in general is worthwhile, just like the bar review classes that every graduate goes through before taking the bar exam; and I think that people would want to know how to find out more. On the other hand, because there are so many providers out there, I think that you run the risk of crossing into either (a) making a yellow pages if you try to list them all or (b) promoting the so-called "notable" companies (translation, "bigger") at the expense of the smaller ones; neither of those is a good result. Ideally, if there was a link to an independent website that lists purveyors of that type of service, that would be the better result. There's a specific policy rule against creating directories of addresses and phone numbers; on the other hand, nothing wrong with showing people where they can click on to someone else's directory of addresses and phone numbers. Mandsford (talk) 01:08, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well I was thinking about making this page into a comparison chart with pricing and geographical location information for each course. Would that make a difference, or would it still be "yellow pages" material? --Patent Lawyer 001 (talk) 16:37, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Patent Lawyer 001:If you want people to anwer your points seriously, I would recommend not phrasing them as attacks or insults. You'll get a better response. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This from the guy whose first communication with me was to accuse me of being the author of the blog I posted an article about. You are a d-bag. STFU. Stop fabricating rules for wikipedia, and people might not get annoyed with you so often. A quick look at your talk page reveals that you enjoy making up your own rules. --Patent Lawyer 001 (talk) 16:37, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That probably would cross into being a directory. Although it would certainly be useful information, Wikipedia was launched with a very definite set of ten rules about the content of articles, grouped under the heading of "What Wikipedia is not" (the shortcut of WP:NOT has the text). Although I found those frustrating at first, they all make sense. In the case of information that other people might rely upon (such as a price list), you can see the problems in having that in a form that "anyone can edit". Mandsford (talk) 14:50, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I won't bother then. I thought that this would be a helpful contribution, and based on the other existing pages (noted above) I thought it was within the rules. But apparently most of the pages I've cited above should also be deleted, they just haven't been nominated for some reason... This situation is very confusing to newcomers who look to existing pages as examples of what is appropriate. This is all the more frustrating when other editors refuse to look at the existing articles you give as examples, but merely scream "NOTDIR - DELETE THIS" repeatedly. Thanks for the info. --Patent Lawyer 001 (talk) 16:37, 30 May 2009 (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.