Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rocket Lawyer


 * 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. JohnCD (talk) 19:42, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Rocket Lawyer

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Article about an online legal service, just containing PR. Corresponding tags were removed by main contributor. Polmandc (talk) 05:47, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

The description of this article as "just containing PR" makes no sense to me - no press releases or company web sites are referenced in the article and every statement is backed by a reliable third-party source. Rocket Lawyer's business model and services are interesting and unique enough that the New York Times, Forbes, Bloomberg, the Wall Street Journal, SmartMoney, and many others wrote articles on it. Given the quality and volume of mainstream press coverage from business-savvy journalists, I'd describe this as a neutral, well-referenced article on a notable company, not PR. Keep. Catavar (talk) 07:46, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Here some examples for PR-content:
 * - ...site also provides a network of attorneys that consumers and small businesses can consult with on legal issues through its On Call service...
 * - ...focused on improving Rocket Lawyer’s customer service and utilizing an analytical approach to new products, including allowing customers to create free legal documents...
 * - ...introduced Legal Health Score, which helps individuals and businesses understand their level of legal wellness...
 * - ...provides both a step-by-step walk through of all the basics needed to improve a user’s legal heath and a detailed action plan that companies can follow to remedy any legal vulnerabilities...
 * - ...offers the Legal Health Score service to all types of accounts—even its free trial account..
 * - ...provides online legal services for individuals and SMBs ranging from prenuptial agreements to incorporating businesses...
 * - ...online legal services are available to Rocket Lawyer account holders, and give access to online legal forms, help articles, and also extend to discounts with local attorneys...
 * - In addition to the do it yourself legal services, Rocket Lawyer offers consumers and businesses access to a network of lawyers who can review customers' legal documents, answer questions, and provide other legal services.
 * - For example, if a user needs assistance in creating or editing a legal document, he or she can be connected directly to a local attorney who can provide guidance.
 * - Rocket Lawyer's legal information and survey results are frequently featured in news publications, such as The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, PCWorld, Lawyers.com, Forbes, Inc. Magazine, and Bloomberg Businessweek.
 * So the article itself contains much PR.
 * A closer look to the few reliable third-party sources (pls leave out the PR-fountains) reveals
 * - NYT: 1st is a blog and the 2nd not available
 * - Here some stuff from 1st Forbes:
 * Founder Charley Moore told me the firm has 70,000 users a day and has doubled revenue for four years straight to more than $10 million this year.
 * Google, Moore said, is interested in anything that “changes the world in a big way.”
 * - Here 2nd Forbes:
 * ...Rocket Lawyer is a subscription service that charges $39.95 per month or $299.95 per year for a business account...
 * When you sign up for a business account, Rocket Lawyer gives you a "legal health score" based on things like whether you've incorporated and whether you're getting contacts in writing. The member dashboard also includes a calendar with reminders for follow up actions...
 * - WSJ (a column):
 * LawDepot.com and RocketLawyer.com both offer nondisclosure agreements for under $20 for one use... - and that's all about RL within the entire column!
 * Theses are the reasons for this afd. --Polmandc (talk) 05:44, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I see what you are objecting to, but reading over that list of quotes, they sound like something any reasonable Wikipedian might write and are comparable to other "real" articles about companies. Wikipedia standards for reliable third-party sources are clear and seem looser than the standard you are applying here.  Most Wikipedia articles are not as well-referenced as this one. Catavar (talk) 07:35, 9 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Article is well-sourced, sources indicate notability, and any concerns about POV/advertising could be addressed by tagging/editing (if tags are removed that's a separate issue to take up with the remover). --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:31, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep There is no reason for this to be here. Sources are relaible, comprehensive and numerous. Forbes, NY Times, Wall Street Journal, Bloomberg etc. I can't see any issues with the article at all. --90.194.241.55 (talk) 11:09, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm one of the main contributors to this article. I'm not sure why, but the user who nominated this for deletion has been continuously flagging this page with notability, advertisement, orphan, and COI tags, in addition to other pages that I've spent some time editing to meet WP:NPOV and WP:RS. After posting on the talk page twice explaining my reasoning for removing the tags, the user nominated the page for deletion instead of responding. I can only assume good faith, but it's been frustrating to say the least. Theo Buckley (talk) 16:20, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment The reasons for flagging the article are given above. Also the article is still an orphan. --Polmandc (talk) 05:50, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment N.B. Looks like someone has fixed the orphan issue already - Wikipedia in action! Catavar (talk) 07:37, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 13:43, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 13:43, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 13:43, 9 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep, good deal of coverage from secondary source material. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 03:57, 12 May 2012 (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.