Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LegalMatch (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:01, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

LegalMatch
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This page is spam and not notable. It includes information that does not accurately portray the company and exists only to disparage the subject. Johnjones888 (talk) 22:43, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * — Johnjones888 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep -- the company is clearly notable as the references indicate. Yes, as the nominator pointed out, this article was created as a spam article, but then the company's PR plans for Wikipedia backfired when the article was de-fluffed and expanded to include material on the founder's felony conviction. A quick skim of the long talk page, Talk:LegalMatch, will give a sense of the challenges in keeping the article neutral. A number of single purpose accounts have been involved with this article and I expect we'll see more at this AfD. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 02:35, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep -- Agreed with AB. There are certainly enough good secondary sources to make this company notable. Blehfu (talk) 03:42, 15 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep, weakly. While the sources in the article itself are weak, Scholar hits would appear to contain significant coverage in reliable sources. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:52, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Spam and not notable.--Davidwiz (talk) 02:06, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The sources available (in the article and in google scholar as Smerdis points out) in my opinion constitute a significant coverage in reliable sources. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 19:19, 21 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.