- 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:12, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Lex-Warrier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article has references, but those I have checked appear only to mention the entity in passing. No serious notability is asserted, but there was sufficient to disqualify it from CSD. Non notable corporation Fiddle Faddle 10:05, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- LAUDABLE EFFORT! A MUST ON WIKEPEDIA OR ELSE MASSES WOULD BE DEPRIVED OF SHEER INTELLECT OF THE UPCOMING LEGAL TALENT. I INSIST THIS ARTICLE SHALL BE THERE FOR WIKI READERS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.112.239.36 (talk) 10:45, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Blatantly promotional Deb (talk) 12:44, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Being a frequent visitor to Lex-Warrier, I could say that, they publish high quality articles on various subjects on law, which could really serve handy for a researcher or a student to refer. I feel, Wikipedia shall retain this page however, if required shall be edited... (Comment by Hari)
- The discussion is not about whether they publish high-quality articles but whether they are notable. I publish high-quality articles in my own blog, but it's not notable.Deb (talk) 14:51, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 22:52, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 22:52, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —SpacemanSpiff 04:30, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete All I could come up with was the ISSN of the journal and a couple of passing mentions. —SpacemanSpiff 17:27, 5 September 2013 (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.