Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Legal coaching


 * 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. ✗ plicit  23:55, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Legal coaching

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Advertising by Lawyer Geertje Tutschka. She already (unsuccessfully) tried to get that into the German Wikipedia, see and advertised on her website with Legal coaching being in Wikipedia (Web archive, has been deleted since). Not well established concept, most sources are by Geerte Tutschka herself. Icodense (talk) 06:18, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:05, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment: I had serious doubts about the appropriateness of this subject for Wikipedia ever since I quickly reverted Geertje Tutschka's first edits to English Wikipedia, which had many issues that I listed in my edit summary. Later I reviewed an early draft of this article and found it not to be of sufficient quality. I stopped paying attention to the article at that point, but I am not surprised to see it nominated for deletion. Biogeographist (talk) 13:17, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  12:45, 28 August 2021 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  23:45, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. Absolutely, 100%, without reservation delete. This is an excellent example of how Wikipedia can be corrupted if we don't apply some discrimination to our editing process. The article was created by Geertje Tutschka, who is clearly part of a small group of people who are trying to develop a new "profession". This, however, is not what Wikipedia is for. We are here to document established services, not to provide support for tendentious attempts at legal "unbundling". (I note that there is a whole debate about the potentially corrosive impact of adding another layer to the legal process, but Wikipedia is not the place for this.) Ms Tutschka is clearly an energetic proponent of her business, as is shown by her not just writing most of this article, but also writing or being the subject of 17 of the 43 current references cited in the article (39.5%). Her nearest challenger as a subject or writer of references is Jo-Anne Stark, who is Ms Tutschka's North American equivalent; she appears in 9 of the 43 current references (20.9%). Unfortunately, not one of these citations is to an unbiased source. All of them are self-published - blogs, books from vanity publishers, obviously self-penned articles and interviews in the unvalidated trade press, and so on - or are irrelevant. The one professional-seeming source cited in the article is a link to the Legal Coaches Association... until you notice that the Legal Coaches Association appears to be a wholly-owned subsidiary of the previously-mentioned Ms Stark. Literally every source for this article is unacceptable. Google doesn't provide any independent coverage. This article is just puffery of the worst kind, attempting to create background noise in favour of Ms Tutschka's business. If people wish to set themselves up as the doulas of the legal world, this is their choice, but we do not and should not put Wikipedia's name to a subject that has no significant independent coverage in respected professional sources. RomanSpa (talk) 10:00, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV. While it looks well referenced, examining the sources more closely reveals that they are largely self published resources. Lacks enough significant RS to meet GNG.4meter4 (talk) 03:15, 11 September 2021 (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.