Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Law Underground


 * 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. postdlf (talk) 19:01, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Law Underground

 * – ( View AfD View log )

I have not found substantial RS coverage of this legal information web-based project. Nor does the article present any -- zero refs. Tagged for notability for 2 years. Tagged for zero refs for over 4 years. Epeefleche (talk) 22:25, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 22:41, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 22:41, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talk about my edits? 13:12, 16 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete Regardless of the articles merits it is a stub WP:STUB and lacks sources/references WP: PSTS . Though the article may have potential WP:POTENTIAL it would need extensive work to comply with Wiki standards for article content.--User:Warrior777 (talk) 23:11, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. The fact that the article is a stub is not a grounds for deletion. Neither, since it is not a BLP, is the fact that the article fails to cite any sources. The question is whether any sources are available. And the answer to that question, in a case like this, is determined by looking for them with Google. James500 (talk) 08:31, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * All true, but I have not found substantial RS coverage. The fact that it has no sources would allow an editor to challenge the existing text that is unsourced, and delete it, but would not be grounds for deletion of the article per se.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:20, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I was not disputing that. James500 (talk) 02:57, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Understood. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:07, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - it was never notable per WP:GNG. Bearian (talk) 22:37, 23 January 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.