Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LawDepot

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. although changes to article are appreciated, references appear to fail CORPDEPTH and hence CORP Tawker (talk) 03:34, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

LawDepot

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Borderline A7. Claim to notability is that the business' site ranks in the top 10,000 for internet traffic. Fails WP:GNG/WP:CORP. Tried to find reliable sourcing and coverage, but apparently none exist. EBstrunk18 (talk) 18:21, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CORP. Source hugely fail WP:RS. Just another WP:PROMO piece. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:49, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's just an ad. TJRC (talk) 22:22, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Changes were made to article, including additional citations and neutral language. --Kdesmit (talk) 17:11, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks for cleaning up the obvious WP:PROMO and adding the sources. But I still think it falls short of ringing the WP:CORP bell. There are still only two sources that I would label as RS and both of those provide only tangential coverage of the business. They are primarily concerned with the the added library service. My !vote is regrettably still to delete. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:39, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hi Kdesmit! I noticed you added a lot of references to the article from reliable, third party sources today; however, you might want to review WP:CORPDEPTH. The coverage in your sources seems to be trivial/incidental statements that LawDepot offers different kinds of documents/products. I also noticed that you've only made edits on LawDepot's page, and I do assume good faith, but for what it's worth, you might want to also review WP:COI. EBstrunk18 (talk) 20:48, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.