Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pre-Paid Legal Services, Inc. & Subsidiaries


 * 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. AfD is not cleanup. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 17:17, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Pre-Paid Legal Services, Inc. & Subsidiaries
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Legal company of uncertain notability. Speedy tag removed by creator (who is also owner of a franchise of said company). Oscarthecat (talk) 16:51, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Not noteworthy, most of the statements require references for which there are no sources. Just seems to be a vanity page, if the company does anything exceptional, an independent contributor will create an article. Until then, delete.Parkerparked (talk) 18:18, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * G11 . Regardless of sourcing this is too highly promotional, and would require a fundamental rewrite to become encyclopaedic.  Easier to start from scratch, and I'm frankly sick and tired of blatant marketing hype being injected into this encyclopaedia.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  19:51, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * When this gets deleted, could the closer please also remove Pre-Paid Legal Services, Inc.— S Marshall  Talk / Cont  19:54, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep and fix. It's traded on the NYSE, and all such firms should be considered notable. The article could if necessary be reduced to its first paragraph. The NYT article is good additional  documentation and indicates the way to find a good deal else. The present article, based on the information there, is to a considerable extent a PR whitewash. Editing is what is appropriate; thiswill preserve the history of what the original article looked like, which is in fact of some interest. DGG (talk) 20:29, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 21:01, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and fix -- per DGG's reasoning, but under the proper name, not the bizarre one to which the COI editor moved the article (I've reverted all that stuff). Stub it as far down as needed. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  00:50, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and fix, in a change of heart. (Orange Mike and I have both been through it with an axe, and it's looking more like a Wikipedia article now.)— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  00:57, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep  -- It seems a prominent, albeit sleezy, NYSE company.Capitalismojo (talk) 03:05, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - There is too much on the article to be edited to get away from advert and blatant COI.--TRL (talk) 02:34, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep if a massive pruning of self-promotional spam takes place. The original editor is also in the process of creating a new entry for every subsidiary for what seems like all 50 states. I have marked them all for speedy deletion under A7 as they only mention that they are a subsidiary of the main company; clearly not an assertion of notability. Wperdue (talk) 02:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)wperdue
 * 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.