Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Birungyi Barata

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. Stifle (talk) 11:37, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Birungyi Barata[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORP, repeatedly recreated see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=delete&page=Birungyi%2C_Barata_%26_Associates Gaijin42 (talk) 04:22, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 04:31, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 04:32, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (gossip) @ 18:10, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy Delete~~ [struck my vote, see my three comments below]) 05:49, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Below, Snowager votes "Speedy keep and close", so the "speedy delete" vote here should be struck out. Snowager could you ~~strike it out~~, please? It should be disregarded, anyhow. --do ncr am 04:28, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Snowager: you mention (G4. Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion) - where can I find the previous deletion discussion? Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 15:56, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since there is no reply, it seems there was no prior AFD. So the "speedy delete" vote seems to have been misinformed, and should be disregarded? I see there is further discussion below...it may have been speedy-deleted before. --do ncr am 04:18, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question: There are currently only six other articles in Wikipedia about individual law firms in Uganda. I would not even know where to start finding reliable sources for these articles. Does this mean that all these articles will be removed from Wikipedia? BTW this afd went up shortly after I added the article to Category:Law firms of Uganda. I would hate to think that my action is the reason this article is up for deletion. Ottawahitech (talk) 15:37, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

the timing is coincidental. I had previously nominated the article for speedy, so it was on my log. I was reviewing the log (for unrelated reasons) and noticed this article was recreated (because it was a blue link, it stood out), and so came to look at the current state of the article. It seemed to still not meed our guidelines, so I nominated it. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:56, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article has been speedily deleted twice. Once for unambiguous promotion and the other for a non-notable article. Also, the article has been tagged that it may not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline. The article should still be deleted as it may fail Wikipedia:ORG. Snowager (talk) 16:35, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Snowager: Up above you said that this article was previously deleted per a deletion discussion -- now you say it was speedily deleted. Since there is no discussion in wp:speedy deletions, and articles are not speedy-deleted "for unambiguous promotion" and "for a non-notable article", can you please slow down and explain exactly why you think this article should be deleted now? Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 02:10, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Very well. It may not meet the criteria for speedy deletion as I couldn't find the deletion discussion for it, you can ignore the CSD G4 so I can focus on the article's notability and how it was recreated. It should not be speedily deleted but it should be Deleted for the following reasons:

~~1: Speedily deleted material shouldn't be recreated or otherwise run the risk of going through a deletion discussion.~~

~~2: It fails Wikipedia:ORG, as said by Gaijin42.~~

~~3: It promotes and/or publicizes an entity, how the article got speedily deleted for spam one time.~~

~~Overall, the article should just be Deleted for these reasons.~~ Snowager (talk) 05:30, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to confirm there was no prior AFD deletion discussion, and I don't see specific evidence that it was even speedy-deleted or prod-deleted, though if snowager says it was, it probably was. Anyhow, whether this is a re-creation or not, fine and good, do let's discuss the material in this AFD. And pls. comment more generally about what makes a law firm in Uganda notable or not. Surely some are worth covering. Is there a source ranking the firms, or giving a top 10? --do ncr am 04:28, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I know little about the topic let alone the country, and since the country is not well covered in Wikipedia, I hate to see the little we have removed from this encyclopedia. The article uses neutral language and is supported by twelve references. Ottawahitech (talk) 14:41, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep and close. I agree with Ottawahitech's words now. Snowager (talk) 19:29, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This vote also should be disregarded, as Snowager changes vote again below. --do ncr am 18:43, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

sources comment the vast majority of those sources are WP:PRIMARY documents of court rulings where the law firm represented one of the parties. The ibanet link is a letter, written by Birungyi. newvision.org is an article about a lawsuit where the firm is mentioned in passing as representing one of the parties. taxplanet.com is just a yellow-pages list of lawfirms. iflr1000 is a directory listing. None of these qualify for WP:GNG or WP:CORP notability as sources. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:01, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I believe in Gaijin's comment, primary sources, fails notability, recreated after 2 CSD's, so overall, we should DELETE and close instead of keeping it. Snowager (talk) 00:33, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be Snowager's final "vote" as of now. I asked Snowager to return and strike previous votes. --do ncr am 18:43, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ymblanter (talk) 09:13, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - The Herald (here I am) 16:04, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I am afraid all entries in Category:Law firms of Uganda fail our notability guidelines. Law firms need to be written about by reliable sources to be encyclopedic (notable); that they exist is not sufficient. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 17:19, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, tentatively. I noticed mention at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countering Systemic Biases, about this AFD and the small category of law firms in the country. I found all 6 other articles in the category PRODed with the identical message, and I removed all 6 PRODs. One is about a law firm that is asserted to be the first and oldest law firm in the country. This one and all the others have sources, are not obviously bad. Will read and browse more, but they all seem okay. Many of them cite some index source on financial-related law firms (IFLR). Does that establish importance? And, could we share views about what distinguishes between notable vs. non-notable law firms in the country, and if non-notable what is your cutoff for covering the firm as an item in a list-article of law firms in the country. Surely some are notable. Surely eliminating all Wikipedia coverage is not the way to develop. Possibly keeping some individual ones, and covering all in a list-article (merging the non-notable ones, rather than deleting them), should be considered. Also please discuss general matters here, i suggest, and let this AFD close, rather than nomming all 6 others for AFD immediately. What sources are reliable vs. not reliable, for establishing most significant law firms in this country? --do ncr am 04:16, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Question about law firm ranking sources - Further, quick searching I find Katende, Ssempebwa & Co., which does not have an article, is asserted to be "the largest and leading law firm in Uganda", founded in 1969, and "consistently ranked first" among Ugandan law firms, both in some Chambers and Partners guide and in IFLR1000 (try IFLR). Is Katende firm obviously notable? Also I see IFLR cited in this Birungyi Barata article, as giving BB a "Tier 4" rating (is that fantastic, or is that horrible, i don't know). Can anyone figure out whether either of these two sources are good? And, if there's an acceptable ranking, what are the top ones that we should start articles for, before proceeding with deletions? Or, better, merging others into a list-article, say List of law firms in Uganda or start first with List of law firms in Africa. I see no African coverage in Category:Lists of law firms? --do ncr am 04:41, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chambers And Partner's, about Uganda law firms, gives some ratings of some firms in "band 1" vs. "band 2" vs "band 3". Gives no "band 4" or higher numbers at that webpage. Would BB be in a "band 4"? --do ncr am 05:03, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There was a list: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of law firms in Uganda. I do not know if the outcome of that AfD was correct. I didn't run an exhaustive search for sources, and never professed to have done so, despite what others claimed. Likewise, there are similar lists for other countries, despite what others claimed. James500 (talk) 17:26, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oooh, thanks James500! Yes, about that AFD, I don't think the "Delete" decision was correct, from what i can see. The three participants did not seem to be aware of the Chambers and Partners source, or other sources, and mis-interpreted what you said, yes. There are more than 3 notable law firms in the country. In fact I think all 10 listed in the Chambers and Partners source are probably individually notable and certainly to be covered in a list-article. One person asserted there exist no other list articles of type "List of law firms in Foo", which is incorrect: since 2008 the category of Category:Lists of law firms has existed, and one was "List of largest European law firms", created in 2008, since moved to List of largest European law firms 2005. Also there is a complaint the article had been created by a sock, but as someone noted that does not require the article to be deleted. I am going to request a full copy of the article to be restored to Draft:List of law firms in Uganda (redlink now, hopefully will turn blue). Let's develop that, covering at least Birungyi Barata and other six in the category, plus any others within the 10 listed in Chambers and Partners. Ottawahitech, can you help? Also, I will start Draft:Chambers and Partners; I see that it is cited a few hundred times in law firm articles in Wikipedia already, and appears to be a reliable, well-established source about top law firms world-wide, an article is needed. --do ncr am 18:43, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: at least merge, if not keep outright, so why not Keep?. Given a list-article of Ugandan law firms in development / re-development, the outcome of this AFD should be either "Merge and Redirect" or simply "Keep". In fact, I think it could be closed "Keep" already, leaving a decision to editors of the list-article, about whether the Birungyi Barata article should be left as an individual article or redirected to the list. It doesn't require an AFD to do a redirect. I think the AFD nomination and participation here so far was all in good faith, but I wonder if everyone who voted "Delete" could come back and reconsider, allowing this to be closed Keep. Pinging: Gaijin42, Piotrus, and Snowager could you please indicate whether you re-affirm your vote, or change it? sincerely, --do ncr am 18:43, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:ADMASQ. Article created a year ago by new SPA who knew how to make an article with tables in his very first Wikipedia edit, leading me to assume a new sock of a previously-banned hired gun. Pax 00:42, 11 February 2015 (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.