Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ibrachy Law Firm (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 delete. Mkdw ^talk 03:22, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ibrachy Law Firm[edit]

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

Relisting AfD and providing rationale not given in first nomination.WP:NOTPROMO, WP:ENN, fails WP:CORPDEPTH. This is a firm that's been around for all of ten years, has one office, and eight employees. Its coverage is entirely limited to this IFLR trade publication; and their about us indicates "IFLR is the market-leading financial law publication for lawyers..." Their awards are therefore self-selected and non-notable. The fact that the magazine printed a partner hire doesn't create notability for the firm - that's a legal requirement for termination of agency, on the same level as a press release. A Martindale listing also doesn't show notability; it proves existence to the extent that someone paid for a listing. The external sources that point to their deals are 404s (including the IFLR source), so the only place to find the info at present is on Ibrachy's website, as I don't believe either site webarchives because they're paid sub sites. So we have no WP:RS for something that doesn't really make them notable anyway. Also, the subject created the page - look at the history. MSJapan (talk) 17:19, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:16, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:16, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:16, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- typical advertorial; does not have sufficient RS to meet GNG and CORPDEPTH. This content can probably be found on the firm's web site and does not need to be replicated here. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:59, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet wp:corp, not even near it. two of the references are dead links, but it looks like they were no more than directory entries. I don't find any sources, but then I'm searching in US Google. LaMona (talk) 22:20, 8 August 2016 (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.