Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Litigation risk analysis

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 keep. Monty ₈₄₅ 01:44, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Litigation risk analysis[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. Originally created by an SPA in 2008 and not substantially modified for content since it was created. The search <"litigation risk analysis" -wikipedia> turns up 8,800 hits, quite a few of which are related to Marc B. Victor's company by the same name and others just mentioning the concept. Raymie (t • c) 05:08, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It produces 451 results, not 8,830. IIRC, the latter number is an estimate. How many of the 46 pages of results did you actually look at? James500 (talk) 00:36, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The term does have some independent notability, through not much (Google Scholar analysis), and the article as written does seem like an advert for Marc B. Victor's company.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:38, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve. This is clearly a notable topic. Results in GBooks indicate that it satisfies GNG easily and by a wide margin. It gets, for example, an entire chapter in this book. As for the perceived advertising, it certainly isn't so bad that the article needs to be deleted and restarted from scratch. James500 (talk) 17:01, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it is a perfectly valid legal stub. Bearian (talk) 16:25, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bearian. --do ncr am 23:04, 7 August 2014 (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.