Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lawinfo

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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:34, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lawinfo

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

WP:NOTABILITY; gnews archive hits are press releases or passing mentions (the only article I could find that seemed to be about the company is less than 50 words long.) ghits, while plenty, do not appear to be the sort that denote notability. Nat Gertler (talk) 15:43, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete This one is a pain in the ass. I tried searching for sources, but it's very hard, since they seem to adverise quite a bit, throwing off historical news searches, especially on law-related matters. Alexa says it's about the 11,000th most popular website in the US, but that doesn't really help the argument for notability. Roodog2k (talk) 16:59, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unless much better sources can be found.
Weak Delete. Along with problems of notability in the nom statement, I have concerns that the article is so promotional ("why our company is great") that it would need a complete rewrite to be okay. Lord Roem (talk) 15:39, 30 May 2012 (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.