Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Law Offices of Michael Lawson Neff, P.C.

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. Cirt (talk) 00:19, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Law Offices of Michael Lawson Neff, P.C.

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

Does not meet WP:COMPANY, lack of secondary coverage (company doesn't even seem to be mentioned in some of the sources). Cassandra 73 (talk) 17:48, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:N Dlabtot (talk) 18:43, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's a lawyer's office. Probably does a good job. Does freebie work for charity. Notable? Not so far as I can see. (I'll take Cassandra's word for the sources.) Peridon (talk) 18:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What makes other law firms notable and this one non-notable? The only difference I see between this firm and the others here on Wikipedia is that the others have more than one office. Some have as few as 2 offices, and fewer notable cases. As the original author, I want to know how to change this page so it isn't deleted User:AtlantaPRPro —Preceding undated comment added 17:55, 29 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]

See WP:COMPANY for inclusion guidelines for organisations. Re the point about notable cases, I'm not sure the cases listed in the article are notable in Wikipedia terms, which is probably a higher bar than what would be considered notable within the industry. Cassandra 73 (talk) 18:30, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, very non-notable average personal-injury firm. To the PR Pro above, what makes (a few) other firms (and companies in general) notable is being "the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources." Notwithstanding that any lawyer will have his name mentioned in court reports of his cases, etc., I see no evidence of this firm's significance with respect to an encyclopedia of global scope. Wikipedia isn't a business directory. Glenfarclas (talk) 21:29, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A search returns the typical directory listings, but nothing in any reliable source indicating that this firm is notable. Plus, WP isn't an advertising forum. Transmissionelement (talk) 18:35, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A little word to User:AtlantaPRPro (and any others looking in): If, as your chosen user name suggests, you are in PR, then please be advised that Wikipedia is not the place for advertising or any promotional material. If you consider any other article to be so, then please tag it, but please do not introduce material intended to be promotional here. This is an encyclopaedia, not a directory or free web-space. Peridon (talk) 20:38, 1 February 2010 (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.