Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Courtroom View Network

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 no consensus. Nja²⁴⁷ 07:55, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Courtroom View Network

May be ad or not meet the notability rule. Thanks, Ain lina (box)? 07:15, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Almost certainly a spam article with the authors attempting to get this division of Courtroom Connect (see Google search) off the ground. JulieSpaulding (talk) 08:17, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. sources exist and I am not in any way affiliated with CVN. This does not WP:AGF.--Loodog (talk) 11:39, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:03, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. per nom. Notabilty and it sure looks like and advert to me.Capitalismojo (talk) 01:59, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It does have some notability, specifically for what the CT Law Tribune says about a Judge's interpretation of the Judicial Conference ban on cameras as "advisory", that was brought about by a case by this company. Google news provides some valid news reports; Boston Globe has written about the concept, while NY Times has reviewed a case broadcast, even the (London) Times, a Russian newspaper and a Japanese newspaper (both of which I can't read) have picked up a story. The article can and should be improved. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 04:09, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.Tyrenon (talk) 15:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability not established. Hipocrite (talk) 16:07, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I quickly found coverage in reliable sources: [1][2][3][4]. The delete voters above make no argument at all, and show no indication that they checked for notability more than just looking at the article. --Apoc2400 (talk) 13:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources found above. Granite thump (talk) 18:03, 4 June 2009 (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.