Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lawjobs.com


 * 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. Rjd0060 (talk) 22:17, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Lawjobs.com

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Job search website. Article creator seems to have a COI. Is it notable? -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 21:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete: NN and Advert Toddst1 (talk) 21:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Only referenced by Trivial coverage such as articles like newspaper articles that simply report the times at which such content is updated or made available, a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of Internet addresses and site or, copies of press releases and official announcements...in other words, a total failure of WP:WEB. -Verdatum (talk) 22:07, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Unconvinced that either of the two referenced sources are more than unreliable blog-type entries. Can anyone argue me down, or find some RS? --Dweller (talk) 22:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.   -- Fabrictramp (talk) 13:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete A blatant attempt at self-promotion. Article creator clearly has a COI.  Reeks of spam.  Banjoman1 (talk) 14:49, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Speedy Delete Its more like a advertisement and it should be a topic on forums not wikipedia. Plus i never saw a news report on lawjobs.com either.--Pookeo9 (talk) 15:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete unless citations from reliable sources are added in order to comply with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 19:55, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. I think this should be kept, although the existing article is inappropriate. However, my reason for believing it should be kept is that, in the course of supervising temporary legal staff of late, it is the jobsite they are likely to be checking when they think they are unwatched, and the one they report most often as the source of competing assignments when lobbying for better pay/hours. Perhaps someone not directly involved in the process can find appropriate sources. Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 22:56, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. It's been online for 10 years, and there's absolutely no news coverage of this site and really no mention at all beyond the in-kind linking and listings among the corporate types buying and selling this product. The NYT has a huge jobs section too, but it doesn't need its own article. And this article has enough padding as it is in order to look like more than sub-section of a larger article; it just needs to be incorporated into the parent/corporate article. Flowanda | Talk 04:48, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete I don't see the notability, appears to be a semi-advert for the site, and the sources are more than questionable. Also per mentioned above by Flowanda. |Texas Patriot | Talk | Contributions| 12:10, 13 April 2008 (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.