Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Advokatfirman Vinge (2nd nomination)

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. Star Mississippi 13:00, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Advokatfirman Vinge

AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

No secondary sources explicitly about the company. I can't find any myself either. I don't believe this company meets WP:CORP. This article was discussed in AfD almost 10 years ago, but I believe the editorial interpretation of notability has shifted since then. Niashervin (talk) 14:10, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Companies, Europe, and Sweden. Niashervin (talk) 14:10, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Vinge has been one of the dominant law firms in the Nordic countries since the 1980s. I've added better sources to the article. /Julle (talk) 08:28, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find any of the sources you cited. Is it possible to read them? Are there sources with similar information that are readily accessible? Even when searching the article names directly on Dagens Industri's website I cannot find them. Niashervin (talk) 15:31, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Niashervin: They require access to w:sv:Mediearkivet, which is a paid service (or to printed copies of the newspapers, I suppose). These sources are largely from the late 80s and early 90s; they won't be easily accessible online. Any Wikipedian with a Swedish university account should be able to check them, though, and Wikimedia Sweden is paying for access for some editors. If you lack access to Mediearkivet, I recommend you treat them as you would any printed source. /Julle (talk) 23:25, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how this "legally" will fit Wikipedia's standards of notability, but just for the record:

If it is a requirement to read into a paid archive to find any sources that make an extant company meet WP:GNG then I don't think it should meet it. If this company really is so noteworthy as a massive law firm, there should me modern references to it. But it doesn't seem like there is any exclusive article on it in the last couple of decades, even as it still runs today. Niashervin (talk) 18:14, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Niashervin: No, we don't require sources to be readily available online; this would make it impossible to write about many topics which are substantially covered only or mostly in print.

I'm confident there are more recent sources for this topic too (but they are mentioned so often that you have to go through a lot of hits, 6370 articles in this archive, so it was easier to look through the early years with fewer hits), but I'm not sure that would help – modern Swedish newspaper articles are typically paywalled, too. /Julle (talk) 06:25, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, misread – the "extant company" part was fairly central to the text I replied to, and I didn't mean to misrepresent what Niashervin wrote. Either way, I think we should treat our sources depending on quality and reliability, not accessability. /Julle (talk) 06:38, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An attempt to briefly describe the texts I've used to expand this article.
Advokaten bakom avtalet: 1300 words about important law firms. Substantial amount about Vinge. Not exclusively focused on them.

Vinge och Sandström går samman: 100 words. Focused on Vinge.

Advokatfirman Vinge: Vinge – i särklass i Norden på M&A!: 400 words. Exclusively on Vinge.

Svensk advokatbyrå öppnar kontor i Kina: 300 words. Partly about the situation in China.

Säkra vinnare: 1000 words. Substantial amount about Vinge, but not exclusively about them.

Affärsfolk i farten: Han tar över Vinges Honkongfilial: 200 words.

I'd consider them to be from high-quality sources. /Julle (talk) 06:49, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Julle, just to be clear here, this is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. In plain English, this means that references cannot rely *only* on information provided by the company - such as articles that rely entirely on quotations, press releases, announcements, interviews, website information, etc - even when slightly modified. If it isn't *clearly* showing in-depth independent content then it fails ORGIND.

You've said that the sources are "high quality" sources, but that is only one part of the criteria. Can you confirm that those sources do not rely entirely on information provided by the company and/or their execs, such as regurgitated announcements, interviews or quotation, or information published in reports by the company? Can you confirm that the remaining information, once you exclude the above, meets the criteria of being in-depth "Independent Content"? HighKing⁺⁺ 11:47, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can make no guarantees, no. These are newspaper articles; they don't come with footnotes. But that's generally true for newspaper articles unless they explicitly make clear that the information is coming from the subject.

(Re-reading the articles, I want to make clear that "substantial" should be read as "definitely more than in passing", but not as "most of the text is focused on Vinge". It isn't.) /Julle (talk) 15:23, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Though a couple of the articles explicitly build on other sources than Vinge, like "Vinge – i särklass i Norden på M&A!". /Julle (talk) 15:37, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do not mean that accessibility is necessary for sources. My point is the following:

If this company still exists (which it does) and it is notable, then why are there no sources published in the age of the internet? I completely understand if the company no longer exists, or for anything else historical. But, in the decades of the most vast amount of published information, we cannot find anything about this company. Niashervin (talk) 17:39, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per improvements made since nom. Third party good sources. WP:GNG applies.BabbaQ (talk) 13:08, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've added a few more sources to the article. /Julle (talk) 15:53, 13 August 2024 (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.