Talk:Online Legal Marketplace
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Online Legal Marketplace redirect. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
new stub
[edit]I couldn't find anything about online legal marketplaces, so I made this stub page. Possible that this should be merged in with a current law article. Eclipsed (talk) 16:19, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Possible this is related to Attorney-client matching? Not sure if it is same business model or not. Eclipsed (talk) 14:14, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Now that I read the Attorney-client matching page a second time, I think this page is related and could be merged in. The 'List of Online Legal Marketplaces' section may also be a problem. Attorney-client matching seems to have some history with having to remove promotional URLs. Maybe if the list was more detailed, like listing # of lawyers in the database, years online, external reviews, etc.. and some policy on what makes a company notable enough to get on the list. Anyone have suggestions? Eclipsed (talk) 22:15, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- One of the two sources, http://www.utterant.co.uk, seems to be a blog. Neither source uses the term "Online Legal Marketplace". The ABHA site seems to call refer to "Case Bidding Services" instead. If more sources can't be found then this should probably be merged to another article. Will Beback talk 23:54, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
- I think merging is a good idea. There's not enough currently to support the naming, and the general topic is covered on the existing article Attorney-client matching. Shall we propose a merge ? Eclipsed (talk) (code of ethics) 10:38, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
- I support the merge. You are the creator and in favour, the move is uncontentious and uncontroversial and can be done quickly without a formal discussion.--Kudpung (talk) 04:26, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Done. --Kudpung (talk) 05:08, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
