Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Global Legal Information Network

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. (non-admin closure) Let'srun (talk) 20:04, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Global Legal Information Network

[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)

Nothing much on the page to suggest notability, I see refs that confirm subject existed but nothing I can see in significant detail possibly as AtD would be to merge with Law Library of Congress JMWt (talk) 17:24, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and United States of America. JMWt (talk) 17:24, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:24, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - GLIN is under the umbrella of, but separate from, the LoC and has independent notability. For my WP:THREE, I'd probably start with [1], [2] and maybe either the NASA one about its development ([3] which is independently cool in and of itself) or The Futurist ([4]). That said, the article is in desperate need of a loving editor (not exactly thick on the ground since you won't find a drier subject), but WP:DINC. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 21:21, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Commentary on the sources would be great :)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sohom (talk) 19:45, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning keep as sufficiently sourceable and notable, per User:Last1in. BD2412 T 00:30, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 16:50, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets GNG with sources listed above by Last1in, especially The IALL International Handbook of Legal Information Management and The Futurist. The Law Library Journal piece is a good third source, though a bit shorter on coverage afaict. I am not confident the NASA/Maryland source is independent, but I might be misunderstanding Kalpakis' role. —siro χ o 19:13, 11 December 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.