Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LegalMatch (2nd nomination)

LegalMatch

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

This page is spam and not notable. It includes information that does not accurately portray the company and exists only to disparage the subject. Johnjones888 (talk) 22:43, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

— Johnjones888 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- the company is clearly notable as the references indicate. Yes, as the nominator pointed out, this article was created as a spam article, but then the company's PR plans for Wikipedia backfired when the article was de-fluffed and expanded to include material on the founder's felony conviction. A quick skim of the long talk page, Talk:LegalMatch, will give a sense of the challenges in keeping the article neutral. A number of single purpose accounts have been involved with this article and I expect we'll see more at this AfD. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:35, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Agreed with AB. There are certainly enough secondary sources to make this company notable. Blehfu (talk) 03:42, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]