Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Lawyer.com

Initial comments lost, this is my recreation: The article has been returned to AfC repeatedly without meeting notability. It has been reviewed 8 times, and more than one reviewer has indicated that this should not be brought back for review unless significant new sources are found. The editor, User:Kcmaher, removed the MfD tag from the draft article and blanked this discussion on Feb. 8. LaMona (talk) 18:46, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Response
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 has 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 within the encyclopedia itself. 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 it's 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)

Do not delete this!
The creator of the page, User:Kcmaher removed the MfD from the article page and blanked this page. I have therefore lost my original edits, but will try to re-create them. Do not repeat that stunt! LaMona (talk) 18:39, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Following Up
I apologize user:LaMona, I thought the "project page" is where the discussions were. That page is still live. I am not trying to pull any stunts, I am trying to better Wikipedia. I apologize for the confusion.

I removed your MfD after researching information about deleting Wikipedia pages. It is my understanding that if anybody objects the deletion (which I do, therefore demoved the deletion tag), that the proposal is aborted. Do I have that wrong? See below:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Proposed_deletion

''There are three steps to the PROD process

To nominate an article, place the tag on the page. This is automatically converted to a proposed deletion/dated which lists the article in Category:Proposed deletion. If anybody objects to the deletion (usually by removing the proposed deletion/dated tag, the proposal is aborted and may not be re-proposed.''


 * That's the PROD, proposed deletion, not Miscellany for Deletion, which gets a discussion. PROD, if not removed, can result in an automatic deletion without discussion. In MfD, an administrator looks at the discussion (somewhat like AfD) and makes a decision. LaMona (talk) 18:52, 10 February 2016 (UTC)