Deletion of TheLadders.com

Comment: and cleanup. It does seem to pass  with significant secondary source coverage, I think
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ORG)

Comment: per ''http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1865948,00.html Time'', ''http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/04/technology/04ecom.html The New York Times'', and ''http://money.cnn.com/magazines/business2/business2_archive/2005/12/01/8364608/index.htm CNN'' articles. These reliable sources sufficiently establish notability. Someone ought to check out , as non-neutrality cannot be the sole reason for deleting an article, unless, of course, it is composed ''entirely'' of spam, which in this case, it is not
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:BEFORE)

Comment: because the company is notable, as shown by extensive coverage in reliable sources.  Correct shortcomings due to |conflict of interest content through normal editing rather than deletion
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest (WP:COI)