Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HotDocs


 * 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:20, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

HotDocs

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The sources for this article are almost all self published sources. Andrew327 04:03, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 06:28, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 06:28, 10 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. There are a decent number of relevant Google News results in law industry publications, although most of the ones that seem more substantial are behind paywalls, like this one. Non-paywalled examples: 1995 Milwaukee Journal Sentinel short article, ABA Journal discussion, 2005 Law Society Gazette mention, LegalWeek mention. Some Google Books results: "HotDocs in one hour for lawyers", recommendation in "The 2010 Solo and Small Firm Legal Technology Guide", recommendation in "The Lawyer's Guide to Working Smarter With Knowledge Tools", recommendation in "How to Build & Manage a Personal Injury Practice". Google Scholar turns up short discussions in magazine articles. Seems enough to support a short article. Dreamyshade (talk) 08:28, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:10, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 00:23, 24 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep  Dreamyshade's sources appear to reach WP:GNG.  --j⚛e deckertalk 05:21, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Mostly per Dreamyshade's investigation. — Ṙ  ΛΧΣ  21  05:40, 31 January 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.