Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Levitan, Sharon & Co.

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. Sandstein 07:17, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Levitan, Sharon & Co.[edit]

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

Non-Notable company, fails both WP:GNG and WP:ORG, no real claim to significance. Mt king ^(edits) 11:39, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is one of the top 500 lawfirms in the world, and a leading one in Israel. The question is where you draw the line: here, and should this lawfirm be one of those here, and in my opinion it should be (In insurance and torts it is at the same level as Naschitz Brandes & Co. which, I know, is marked here as not notable, but in Israel, it is very notable - both are). Deror (talk) 11:42, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG defines the bar as "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article" and Levitan, Sharon & Co. don't seem to have that, it is nothing to do with size, number of offices, staff numbers or place on a ranking list. Mt king ^(edits) 20:00, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:25, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:25, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:25, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:09, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as having insufficient coverage in independent third-party sources. If such sources are integrated into the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:06, 9 December 2011 (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.