Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lawyer.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.  Sandstein  12:39, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Lawyer.com

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

TLDR: This page doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:CORP.

This page was deleted as a draft via MFD for being non-notable, was requested to be undeleted on the promise with a statement that it would be significantly rewritten, and is substantially similar to the original version. The only changes have been to add a puff piece about Pokemon Go and some coverage about a legal suit (two of which are from niche websites). There's just not a lot of significant coverage, and I almost feel like there's a bit of GAMING going on hoping that no one would notice the new page. Primefac (talk) 04:24, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:19, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:20, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:20, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:20, 3 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete as corporate spam. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:47, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete, promo piece that reads like a press release; fails WP:Corp. Kierzek (talk) 14:48, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep, as this page DOES meet WP:GNG and WP:CORP and WP:COMPANY, as the references are all valid and notable at various levels (major outlets, local, industry outlets, non-industry outlets).
 * Per WP:GNG, which states in these exact words that an article like this is perfectly acceptable: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list."
 * Furthermore, via WP:COMPANY, which again states word for word that an article like this is legitimate: "This includes commercial and non-commercial activities, such as charitable organizations, educational institutions, hospitals, institutions, interest groups, social clubs, companies, partnerships, proprietorships, religious denominations, sects, etc." and also "multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability", all of which are properly sourced and meeting these requirements.
 * Finally, the assumption that there was a "promise that it would be significantly rewritten" is a false statement. This was never promised. The idea of "Gaming" and "hoping no one would notice" is heresay, and not based on fact.
 * Factually speaking, this article was previously denied due to lack of "significant independent coverage". Since the last submission, significant independent coverage has been included as sources, and was approved for that reason, so I would suggest it illogical to remove this page.Kcmaher (talk) 15:21, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * You make a valid point, you never technically promised. I have stricken that statement and reworded to reflect the actual events. Primefac (talk) 16:17, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   16:50, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - corporate promotion with no encyclopedic value. -- Dane 2007  talk 00:36, 30 November 2016 (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.