Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Top Fourteen

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 of the debate was delete. --Ezeu 09:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Top Fourteen

I speedily deleted this page as a repost of deleted content. The article creator objected, asserting that the new article addressed the objections raised in the previous AFD. Therefore I am bringing the new version here. Snottygobble 05:51, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

• Neutral. Snottygobble 05:52, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep: I am the author of the most recent version of this article. The first article was deleted because it was not sufficiently verifiable and because of suspected sockpuppetry during the original AfD debate. I have added a number of reliable sources to confirm that this is not simply a "neologism" and hope that this debate will avoid another descent into sockpuppetry, which I think really distracted people from the merit of the article the first time around. Even the person who nominated the last T14 article agrees that this version merits inclusion. I welcome any suggestions for further improvement. --Cheapestcostavoider 06:03, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: do you know when the term was created? It seems very unlikely that there would be no change in the rankings year after year besides movement within the top fourteen. By the way, some of the links don't work. -- Kjkolb 11:05, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Response: I've just tried to fix the links; they should be working now. No, I don't know when the term was created, but the US News rankings date back to (I believe) 1987. The point isn't that the rankings don't change, but that the top 14 have been the same schools in every edition of the rankings. The reality is that the rankings do change quite a bit, which is why the fact that the same 14 schools have remained on top each time has struck so many people as noteworthy. --Cheapestcostavoider 18:22, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless there is some verification of mainstream use of this term in this context. In all the links I found no evidence that T-14 is a common or notable term. Kevin 12:37, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete for the same reasons people voted delete in the last AfD. References and sources in the new article which supposedly addressed previous objections are links which in several cases don't work, or make no mention of T-14, or if they do mention it, its done only in passing and present no evidence which convinces me of it being a notable term. -- I@n ≡ talk 13:18, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Is it a legitimate term? Perhaps. Is it a notable term? Not at all. -- Kicking222 16:14, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: I don't think I understand the distinction between "legitimate" and "notable" you're making here. --Cheapestcostavoider 18:22, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment "Legitimate" meaning it's a term that probably actually exists; "notable" meaning it's a term that's important enough to have it's own WP article. -- Kicking222 20:52, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep The sources seem to establish its notability. It also gets 10K+ hits on Google. It's very widely used among law students and the Brian Leiter sources seem to verify this. -Sparklemotion 16:40, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, article establishes notability via published sources and assertion that prospective students use this list to pick the best schools. Maybe could use renaming (Top Fourteeen Law Schools). Nothing links to the article, though, so that probably ought to be fixed. --Elkman - ^(talk) 17:02, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, really no substantial change from old version. The sources don't convince me that this is not a neologism -- every neologism is used somewhere -- that doesn't mean they are notable. In the end, a slang term used by some people involved with the law school admissions process shouldnt be included in this encyclopedis. Wikipedia is not a slang dictionary. Xoxohthblaster 18:03, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: I don't think you can really call this "slang" so much as a colloquialism. A related term that has been deemed notable enough for inclusion is Little Ivies, which is actually much less well-documented, widely used or clear as to what schools it includes. --Cheapestcostavoider 18:22, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: I really dont see much point in getting into a debate over the meaning of the word "slang" .... Wikipedia is also not a colloquialism dictionary. Moreover, the fact that one potentially non notable topic has not been deleted is not a justification for keeping articles on other non notable topics -- that kind of reasoning could quickly become a slippery slope to a wikipedia littered with non-notable content. Xoxohthblaster 19:41, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Response: Well, putting aside the semantic debate over what kind of word you want to call it, there's no question that that numerous similar terms have been found notable. It is absolutely proper to use past AfD debates and uncontroversially included articles as precedent in determining whether or not to keep an article. The fact that Little Ivies, which again, has a much weaker case, has been kept weighs strongly in favor of keeping this. It's much more dangerous for the deletions to be made arbitrarily and inconsistently than to use precedent to determine community views. --Cheapestcostavoider 22:43, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. There's no significant improvement over the version that was deleted. Brian G. Crawford 20:51, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. The sources don't convince me that this is not a neologism. Quepasahombre 21:51, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, reluctantly. Normally, there are not articles about these things. For example, things called "big three" just have an entry in a disambiguation page (except Big Three (universities), people love articles about their schools). There are no "big three (automakers)" or "big three (American brewers)" articles. I commend Cheapestcostavoider for his documentation, though. -- Kjkolb 02:40, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Minor tweaking and a few sources does not make a non-notable neologism appropriate for wikipedia. Captaintruth 14:22, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep or at least Merge with Law School Rankings, where it is already mentioned. This is widely-used by law students and admissions professionals. I think the other people here probably don't fit either of those categories and feel that the term should be deleted just because they are not personally familiar with it. 128.59.181.59 18:09, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep It has been pointed out before that in the entire existence of US News & World Report, there has never been another school to crack the top 14 then these ones. That at least gives credibility to it as at least a creation of snobbery and arrogance. Although I disagree with the principle of placing 14 schools into a certain group on the grounds of prestige, they no doubt have been, and a section titled Controversy should likewise be included in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.159.213.36 (talk • contribs)
• Comment: People seem keen on the argument that those voting delete are simply unfamiliar with this term. I, for one, am quite familiar with it. But my familiarity with it does not equal notability...and I agree with the argument that this is a non-notable neologism. Also, note that the last two keep votes should be heavily discounted, as one was from an unregistered user and the second was unsigned and from an unregistered user. Captaintruth 02:11, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Response: I think it's far to widely-noted to be considered a neologism. Even purely on its incredibly widespread use on discussion boards, it would probably qualify as an internet meme. But of course it doesn't have to rely on this argument. And I don't think it's consistent with the idea of "not biting the newcomers" to categorically disregard reasoned opinions that come from unregistered users (it's not a vote, anyway). For one thing, I wouldn't be entirely opposed to the idea of a merge & redirect to Law School Rankings as an alternative to keeping the current article. Of course, I think keeping it would be better, because I think the sources make it clear that the term is widely-used and understood by nearly everyone involved with law school admissions, even the people who don't think it should be as important as it is. -Cheapestcostavoider 03:10, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

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.