Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AdvocateKhoj


 * 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. --Cerebellum (talk) 00:43, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

AdvocateKhoj

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I have serious notability concerns, and also feel that this article is overly promotional. The vast majority of information is sourced to the company's website (which is also, I understand, blacklisted), or those of two parent companies. One nomination for an award is not sufficient given the lack of significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources. GiantSnowman 11:09, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

AdvocateKhoj Law Library is listed by some of the esteemed institutions around the world as an open legal resource. You may please check: link:www.advocatekhoj.com/library/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anoop4uall (talk • contribs) 11:17, 25 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Are you connected with AdvocateKhoj, Nubia or Neosys as an owner, an employee, a contractor or in any other way? NebY (talk) 13:09, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, i am connected to AdvocateKhoj as a Partner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anoop4uall (talk • contribs) 13:25, 25 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you for that prompt clarification. Are you aware of Wikipedia's guidelines on conflicts of interest? There's a practical introduction at WP:PSCOI and a fuller version at WP:COI; have you read either of those? NebY (talk) 13:38, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I am not aware of such a guide. Going through it now. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anoop4uall (talk • contribs) 13:51, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Does it mean that a person related to an entity cannot contribute even if it’s an unbiased contribution? AdvocateKhoj law library is listed in all the top law universities around the world for its open resource which has benefited the legal fraternity at large.


 * I wouldn't say "cannot" but you will have noticed that the guidelines are phrased very strongly indeed. Editors who have a conflict of interest do often assert that their contributions are unbiased but when their only contribution to Wikipedia has been to promote their own product or organisation then scepticism and even disbelief are entirely reasonable. I'll address your mention of listings and benefit below. NebY (talk) 15:19, 25 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:34, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:34, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:34, 25 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:WEB, also COI/WP:SPAM issues, as admitted above. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  14:04, 25 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete Notability not established. The article is about a portal for clients to hire lawyers and has no indication of the portal's success as a business venture or a public service. The library largely replicates information found in many other places. To take two examples, the general guidance section can be found on many other Indian websites, often with identical phrasing though not always broken up into separate pages and without the constant reminders to use this particular portal to hire a lawyer. Similarly, a variety of other Indian websites carry accessible listings of Supreme Court judgements, not least the court's own website here. A very small number of websites outside India include the portal in lists of links. NebY (talk) 16:00, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

NebY The Supreme Court site you have mentioned is of UK and not India Anoop4uall (talk) 11:45, 26 October 2013 (UTC)


 * weak delete unless reliable sources turn up. This page could potentially become useful if kept and sources found. A quick search turned up, with my opinions:
 * Two university libraries' websites; this is probably the most likely (but still dubious as regards establishing notability)
 * This appears to be NPOV, but alone does not appear to establish notability
 * an entrepreneurship magazine (but not really enough to establish notability)
 * this article appears to be a POV editorial
 * A blog (i. e., not a reliable source)
 * this appears to be a press release publication service; this same article is duplicated at a number of similar websites
 * Goldenshimmer (talk) 17:56, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Its not just 2 university libraries' websites from India where this site is listed, there are plenty more. Please refer: ,, , , , , , , , ,  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anoop4uall (talk • contribs) 04:05, 26 October 2013 (UTC) Anoop4uall (talk) 04:34, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

You may also refer this: Library of Congress, Yale Law School Anoop4uall (talk) 09:45, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Probably you should look at Google books and the only twitter channel publishing real-time judgments of the Supreme Court of India. Anoop4uall (talk) 05:07, 26 October 2013 (UTC)


 * If you haven't already read the guidelines for whether an organisation is a valid subject for an article then you might like to do that now. As you'll see, independent sources are required and simply being listed by reputable websites doesn't confer the notability required for Wikipedia articles. NebY (talk) 10:04, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

If you are talking about media coverage then check this out: advocatekhoj.com/mediacoverage/index.php and Ergo (Indian newspaper) http://www.goergo.in/?p=1265 Anoop4uall (talk) 13:00, 26 October 2013 (UTC)


 * That's nearly all just brief coverage of the launch in 2008, largely based on your press release, plus praise for the IT implementation in one magazine. Can you show notability within the legal sphere over the following years? NebY (talk) 12:03, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

I had already mentioned about the notability within the legal sphere by stating that the portals is used extensively by legal fraternity and is also listed by top Universities around the world as a reliable legal resource.Anoop4uall (talk) 12:25, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete No sources establish WP:N. Being a finalist in a magazine's "Best IT Implementation" is not notable. The article has no encyclopedic information. Johnuniq (talk) 00:40, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  05:53, 27 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails WP:ORG and WP:WEB. The only claim to notability seems to be being a finalist for an award given out by a magazine, which is pretty weak tea. Other news coverage (listed at www.advocatekhoj.com/mediacoverage/index.php) has been thin; in non-major news sources; timed with the launch of the website in 2008 (with almost nothing since); and judging by the common language used by those articles, largely based on the company's press releases. Given that a founder of the company has been involved in editing the article and at this AFD, and yet no better sources have been found, suggest that none exist. Abecedare (talk) 21:17, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per Abecedare.  GregJackP   Boomer!   00:35, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete: WP:COI article on non-notable website, with no independent reliable sources found on searching; editor admits to using article to garner web traffic ("there was a traffic drop from my Google Analytics Account"). -- 101.119.15.173 (talk) 08:05, 2 November 2013 (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.