Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TLDRLegal

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 delete. L Faraone 13:15, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

TLDRLegal

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

Seems a bit too fresh to be notable. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:53, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. 17:01, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:01, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. When the article itself tries to argue notability, that's a strong indication that it isn't. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:01, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Saw a brief mention in book, Jump Start Responsive Web Design, haven't come across much other secondary source coverage, yet. — Cirt (talk) 10:13, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. As per WP:TOOSOON. The subject does have significant coverage in a reliable source (Network World seems to have good editorial oversight), but I was unable to find other websites with similarly detailed write-ups or news stories. Given that notability generally requires multiple reliable secondary sources, I'm hesitant to give support to keeping an article on a subject so close to the borderline on notability requirements. Chri$topher 20:36, 23 April 2013 (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.