Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Attorneyfee


 * 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   Snow Delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:09, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Attorneyfee

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article reads very much like an advertisement or promotion, as if it is trying to establish notability by having a wikipedia article, but provides nowhere near enough sourcing or references as to why it is notable enough to warrant an article, as per WP:ORGDEPTH. Given that it is now over a year old, and the vast majority of editing done to it so far (including the original article creation and all content of any note) is from a user with a clear COI (user "Komaiko" is almost certainly "Richard Komaiko" - or a relative - who is listed in the article as one of the founders of the business), I'm inclined to nominate this article for deletion, since I see no point or value in trying to find sufficient notability where there likely is none. Besieged (talk) 17:09, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete This company is scarcely mentioned among the reliable source in this article; the other sources are blogs from those in the law practice (or industry, as they'd put it). I found this article here about the company, but it is again, just a blog.  With no success, I recommend deletion.  I, Jethrobot  drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 17:41, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong delete. These people are clearly trying to use Wikipedia as a way of legitimizing their business. --Roman à clef (talk) 20:06, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * NOTE For anyone else examining this issue, the user account that created this article (with significant COI concerns, as that user is apparently an executive in the company/org in question) also created a (recently deleted, as per my nomination for Speedy Deletion via A7 and G11) article for a very similar business entitled The Lawyer Market, which appeared to be a nearly identical business with similar officers. Additionally, there seems to be some small amount of sockpuppetry going on with the User:Komaiko123 and (recently deleted) User:Attorneyfee accounts. By all accounts, this page is merely shameless promotion.  B e s i e g e d talk 20:22, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete I agree with Besieged on this on. This article was obviously made by an executive, and lacks notability.Bizarre carl (talk) 20:34, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 24 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Leaving aside the NPOV issues, here's what I see for notability: A passing mention in the ABA Journal, a mention of a startup being launched, and then this blog post, found through the ABA Journal article, which passes it off as one of many in the "cottage industry," to use the blog's term. Similarly, this post lists the service as being one of many new legal startups.  A look through the first 10 pages of results for "attorneyfee" in Google's "verbatim" mode only shows more of the same.  In short, it seems to be a non-notable legal services startup.  --Philosopher Let us reason together. 18:55, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete, obvious shameless self-promotion by a non-notable company; WP:SNOW. TJRC (talk) 01:20, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete as per the above. Troubling indeed that it took us a year. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 14:51, 25 October 2012 (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.