Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LegalMatch

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The result of the debate was Keep, withdrawn by the nominator. --Deathphoenix 03:27, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] LegalMatch

The page itself is clearly an ad. The subject company are vigorously linkspamming on wikipedia (See here). Voting delete but will in principle change that vote if someone can establish that the company fits WP:CORP or WP:WEB. AndyJones 17:56, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete A place for people to find a lawyer on the internet to help them divorce someone they married after finding them on the internet. Ruby 18:14, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment If the company is notable I'd say keep, the article is neutral enough. Make sure they don't try to control the article though, and perhaps keep it to one link to their main page. Tinus 20:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  I did some cleaning up to make it more wikipedia and less ad. Particularly the 'Marketing agreements' line is kind of bizarre, how noteworthy is saying 'we placed ads on google'? Still needs editing. Tinus 20:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I don't see any evidence of notability. Liamdaly620 21:48, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment here are some links: 433,000 google hits counts in their favour. Alexa rank over 42,000 counts against. Some internet press is highly critical so no surprise they're attempting to linkspam here. My vote still a delete at this point. AndyJones 15:17, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, if 'the press' is talking about them, that does make them notable. Not sure how that applies to blogs though. I filed a spam complaint to google anyway for the results for link:www.legalmatch.com, if you browse through them almost all the results are on two sites participating in some kind of ad scheme. BTW on google.com I get 862,000 results for linkmatch, but still only 6 result pages, so a lot of them already have been trashed. Perhaps in a short while we can add them to SEO as an example of 'optimizing gone wrong'. Tinus 01:36, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

• Comment more linkspamming today, here. AndyJones 18:29, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Ruby --kingboyk 19:23, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I did some research about the (unreferenced) allegations someone added yesterday. I readded them in their own section and expanded, including references to back them up. The references include newspapers, which means the article meets the notability requirements in WP:CORP and WP:WEB. Tinus 00:50, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
• Yes, I agree that this controversy conveys notablity. I'll withdraw my nomination and vote keep. AndyJones 08:57, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

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.