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. Consensus is clear, although I suspect that this ultimately may prove to be notable. I am happy to userfy a copy of the article if desired. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 16:47, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LegalWikiPro[edit]

This article is about a fledgling wiki that violates the website notability requirements, as there aren't any reliable sources about the wiki. the article's creator was the founder of LegalWikiPro and added external links to his wiki from many articles, thus violating the conflict of interest guideline. If LegalWikiPro becomes notable, it could have an article here, but Wikipedia is not an advertising service. Graham87 13:28, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as blatant advertising.--Boffob (talk) 14:23, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, clearly using Wikipedia as a means to promote and establish the company's own notability. That's not what we're here for - this company can have an article once they've been covered in multiple reliable sources. ~ mazca ^t|c 14:35, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete non-notable, no reliable sources, appears to be advertising.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:46, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete (G11) — Contains egg sausage bacon and spam. MuZemike (talk) 19:29, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly an advertisement, trying to build up viewer ratings - which is not what we are for. So want to do ((db-spam)). --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:30, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey all.. Looks like I stepped in it here. Didn't mean to. When I first created the article I had a discussion with an editor who helped me clean up the article. If you will look at the discussion page, you will see that NuclearWarfare and I had a discussion about this issue (more discussion on his talk page). I say that to point out that I tried to do this in good faith and thought that I had cleared the editorial threshold. As to the issue of notability, you mention that an article is appropriate "once they've been covered in multiple reliable sources." Well, I think LegalWikiPro has met that. There is a post on the front page of LegalWikiPro that notes several prominent legal bloggers and web sites who have written favorable articles about LegalWikiPro. These are the "legal research world" equivalents of reviews in Time Magazine, etc. Anyway...that's my case. Thanks for your consideration. Briefer (talk) 15:48, 10 November 2008 (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.