Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/McCarthy Tétrault

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. Consensus for Keep via given available sources, though several !votes were lacking suitable justifications there is clearly a decision to preserve the article. (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 20:55, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

McCarthy Tétrault

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

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

McCarthy Tétrault (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Although this appears to be a large and illustrious firm, ythe refs are almost all dead links and searches reveal very little better. The list of alumni are (almost?) all from law companies long since defunct which presumably have been swallowed up by the current law firm or its predecessors. It is not uncommon for large law firms to have a low profile in the press, perhaps for good reason, but this one seems to have developed an unusually low profile. Regrettably to exist on Wikipedia, something more significant is needed. Fails WP:GNG  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   22:56, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:55, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:55, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:55, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

• Keep. It's one of the movers and shakers in Canada, according to the Financial Post Clarityfiend (talk) 04:36, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
• Keep Definitely notable having been established back in 1855. -- Gprscrippers (talk) 16:25, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:26, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

• Keep. Satisfies GNG due to coverage in GNews, GBooks etc. 830+ lawyers at one point [1]. Established 1855. Is or was the largest firm in Canada, [2] and the first national firm there. James500 (talk) 22:44, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
• Keep. Yes, this needs referencing improvement — but such improvement is very definitely possible here. For a law firm with roots extending back to 1855, a lot of the potential referencing will be located in news retrieval databases rather than out in the open on the web — but we have no requirement that our sources be web-accessible, just that they be cited. Bearcat (talk) 16:13, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
• Keep meets requirements. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 04:34, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

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.