Hello, Briefer! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already loving Wikipedia you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Happy editing! NuclearWarfare (talk) 23:22, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply] Getting Started Wikipedia Tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Pages needing attention • Peer review Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, but all Wikipedia articles must meet our criteria for inclusion (see What Wikipedia is not and Deletion policy). Since it does not seem that LegalWikiPro meets these criteria, an editor has started a discussion about whether this article should be kept or deleted.

Your opinion on whether this article meets the inclusion criteria is welcome. Please contribute to the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LegalWikiPro. Don't forget to add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of each of your comments to sign them.

Discussions such as these usually last five days. In the meantime, you are free to edit the content of the article. Please do not remove the "articles for deletion" template (the box at the top). When the discussion has concluded, a neutral third party will consider all comments and decide whether or not to delete the article. Graham87 13:46, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a place to advertise a new wiki, particularly your own (see the conflict of interest guidelines). Keeping this in mind, I have removed all the links you added to your wiki per the external links guidelines about local interest links and wikis, removed its entry from the list of wikis, and nominated your article LegalWikiPro for deletion. It's OK to say that you created LegalWikiPro on your userpage, but nothing more than that. Graham87 13:46, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe these links are useful, as the creator of the site, go to the article's talk page and let the regular editors of the article decide whether to add them. However, here's what the external links guideline has to say about wikis under the "Links normally to be avoided" section:

"Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors."

Regarding the mentions of LegalWikiPro in third-party sources, the bare minimum for Wikipedia is the external links at Jurispedia, which are educational papers, not comments on personal websites or blogs. I did find the discussion between you and User:NuclearWarfare about the article's creation. I disagree that it's "perfectly fine", as he said, to start an article like that, and so does the conflict of interest guideline. Graham87 23:25, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heya. Wanted to go on record, since the AFD is closed as noting that I, for one, am not opposed to the article being resurrected when LWP comes to notability. Good luck in your endeavor. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 18:46, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Same here. By the time that sources like peer-reviewed journal articles make non-trivial mentions of it, then I have no objection to the existence of an article about LegalWikiPro. Graham87 00:04, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]