Redundant with existing topic
Spam content and links continue to be reinserted and reverted. Non-notable and blatant commercial websites and self-serving "associations" do not meet WP:EL or WP:RS; source content to legitimate, independent news reporting meeting WP:RS, and discuss edits here first. Flowanda | Talk 08:04, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
The association part is not mine, so I removed it, it did look like spam. However, all other links are verified by myself, an attorney barred in PA and NJ, as well as by existing public documents and case law that I reference on my website.
- It still partly looks like an advertisement for the phenomena. Could be rewritten. --22.214.171.124 (talk) 00:09, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
It seems that Litigation Funding (UK) and Legal financing cover the same ground. Since articles are about things and not terms, having two articles about the same thing is a form of content forkery. It also appears, by the edit history of the redirect litigation funding that this merger has already taken place in the past. — Æµ§œš¹ [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ] 12:42, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
- The Litigation Funding (UK) page been greatly expanded over the almost 4 years since this merge proposal was last discussed. Given this (referenced) expansion the proposal to merge no longer seems tenable, as it discussed UK-specific law that would unduly swamp the target. Therefore I'll remove the merge tag; if there was interest in a merge, perhaps a new discussion could be started.Klbrain (talk) 12:37, 5 July 2016 (UTC)