Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FindLaw


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 12:00, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

FindLaw

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Declined PROD. The only source given is an interview, arguably for PR purposes, and most other coverage I could find was insignificant or not at reliable, independent sources. There is insufficient evidence to show that the company meets the notability guidelines for companies or the general notability guidelines --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 07:36, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.  —--  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 07:38, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm seeing a lot of PR guff but also a lot of genuine coverage like . It's a big service (I use it) so I'd be very surprised if it's not notable. --Mkativerata (talk) 07:43, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep, weakly. Easily meets the "I heard of it before seeing a Wikipedia article" test, but this may not be true of the general public.  Some small but substantive coverage in books and legal periodicals would appear to meet the general notability guideline.  This is now a part of Lexis/Nexis and that may be a merger candidate. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:25, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The article provides an adequate claim of notability and the source in the article as well as others available establish notability. This article is thoroughly integrated into Wikipedia through numerous inbound links. Alansohn (talk) 18:52, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Google searches reveal lots of coverage. Although a quite a number of them are PR releases, there are ample independent sources from which to meet the substantial coverage threshhold for notability.-- Pink Bull  19:29, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep not just a notable database publisher, but one of the leaders in its field, with enough evidence to show it  DGG ( talk ) 01:56, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per my comment above. --Mkativerata (talk) 02:32, 18 October 2010 (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.