Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buchalter

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2018 April 25.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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. This has remained listed for 8 days with no arguments to keep it. Enigma^msg 00:44, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Buchalter[edit]

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

Questionable notability. Many of the sources (3-8) are merely listings on websites or various "top places to work" clickbait lists. Sources 1, 9, and 10 aren't primarily about this law firm; again, just top 50 type lists for regional law firms. Source #2 doesn't support notability by itself. Note that the editor who created this article is blocked for undisclosed paid editing. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 09:56, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:40, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:40, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:56, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable enough. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:24, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 19:00, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SoWhy: Do you mind explaining your relist in terms of WP:NOQUORUM? I would have expected this to be treated as a PROD, especially with two editors agreeing on deletion. (This guideline changed substantially a few months back, so you may be unaware of it.) ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 19:11, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @BU Rob13: The guideline says "If a nomination has received no comments from any editor besides the nominator and the article hasn't been declined for proposed deletion in the past, the closing administrator should treat the AfD nomination as an expired PROD." and "If a deletion discussion sees very little discussion even after being relisted several times, the administrator can close the discussion as soft delete and delete the page." (emphasis added both times) Here we have comments from another editor, so the first part does not fit and we had no relist, so the second part does not fit neither. Personally, I would not mind the guideline to read "no comments from any editor besides the nominator or only delete comments" but alas it doesn't. I am aware that my adherence to written policy and guidelines has been criticized just recently but I don't think it's appropriate to ignore the guideline when it was just worded like this a few months back. Regards So Why 20:33, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'll make the bold fix; I was the person who did the re-write in the first place, and I didn't anticipate anyone interpreting additional support for deletion as somehow supporting keeping the article for longer... ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 20:51, 30 July 2017 (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.