Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Lawyer.com

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was:  procedural close, already deleted. Avic ennasis @ 13:41, 21 Kislev 5777 / 13:41, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Has been submitted at AfC 8 times, but there still aren't sufficient sources. Of the sources now on the article, 4/8 are about its use of bitcoin and being a "best place to work." Of the remainder, one is about the founder, not the company; one is a brief quote from an officer; one is a rather promotional article in a very local news source; the last is an announcement (somewhat promotional) about the company opening for business in Canada in "the journal of downtown Toronto". LaMona (talk) 18:51, 5 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I have spoken with several Wiki moderators and users over the years who all have differing opinions of sources (specifically credibility). To be fair, more than half of the users I have spoken to in the IRC help chat have said that if they were reviewing the submission, they would pass, and that there are currently many worse articles with no sources or relevant content. I have read the guidelines and still have not heard a concrete answer from a group of moderators. If it comes to down to "he said, she said", I certainly defer to those who have more knowledge and experience than I do when it comes to verifying a page on Wikipedia, but I myself have been a wiki user and donator for several years. I may be biased as this is an article I created, but I am confident that it SHOULD be included in the encyclopedia in its current state. I am confused that the IRC chat help has told me the article is good and would be posted, yet everyone with approve/deny has rejected it, poking holes in every source, suggesting to remove some and not others (which have all conflicted); that content should be added, then content should be removed, etc. Wikipedia approval is a gray area, no one can argue that; and as such, I do not see a reason why this specific article has been cast down time after time. It achieves its purpose, explains the subject, sources its own information, and would serve to help any wikipedia user who came across the page, which is the main goal of the online encyclopedia. Those points are irrefutable and can not be denied, but for some reason the article can? Does not seem logical to me.Kcmaher (talk) 16:52, 8 February 2016 (UTC)


 * You are correct that there are grey areas in Wikipedia's guidelines. The vast scope of the project makes defining black and white policy possible only for very specific cases.  Everywhere else we must rely on Notability (organizations and companies) specifically it's requirement of significant coverage in independent 3rd party reliable sources.  We also rely on consensus among editors.  8 different editors expressing the same concerns (lack of reliable sources demonstrating notability) over 20+ months is consensus.  Can this subject meet notability guidelines?  I dont know, but I have my doubts.  This appears to be a directory of lawyers, nothing more, nothing less.  It's going to be difficult to get a reliable 3rd party source to write about that.  The acceptance of bit coin is interesting but insufficient to bring this up to the level of notability.  The biggest problem here is the lack of improvement in the article over the 20 months.  Editors are seeing the same problems persist without improvement which is why it continues to be declined.--RadioFan (talk) 13:01, 11 February 2016 (UTC)


 * The Lawyer.com article is more complete and has more independent and notable sources cited than 50% of the articles currently on Wikipedia. If the same article had been submitted 5 years ago, it surely would have passed. Do you disagree? I disagree about the lack of improvement; each editor told me something different. I went from adding more content, to removing all content and only including sentences with a source, to removing 75% of sources, to being told I need more content again. That is confusing process and lacks any common ground, other than its' negative nature. This community puzzles me; I feel much like an outsider and when I have been using Wikipedia for years, contributing to edits for 3 years, and been donating for almost a decade. Which again, is why I will not be donating to Wikipedia anymore. Kcmaher (talk) 16:59, 12 February 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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.