Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tilleke & Gibbins

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 no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:46, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tilleke & Gibbins[edit]

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:DGG who wrote: "the references may be sufficient. Please use afd". Well, we are here. The refs are still poor (more than half self-published) - and please note that the company's support for the notable Museum of Counterfeit Goods doesn't inherit, so don't vote keep because of The Time and others coverage of the museum. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:30, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's very hard to judge law firms. This seems to be a very important law firm in their country. The Museum is not unconnected with their work-- it seems to be the direct offshoot of their IP specialization. DGG ( talk ) 22:10, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Being (or "seeming to be") an important firm in a given country is not a valid criteria for notability, not unless this is shown by sources. Here, for example, I decided not to press with AfD following a removal of my prod, as my second investigation did turn out a ref showing that another law firm is indeed seen as important in another country. But in this case, I am not seeing such sources. Self-published sources, passing mentions, listing in few regional rankings - neither of this is sufficient to satisfy notability. And museum has a separate article, to which - at best - perhaps this article could be merged, if you think the connection is strong. But notability is not inherited: museum founders, sponsors and such are not notable unless there's independent coverage of them. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:13, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 06:54, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:06, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While the sources currently on the page are not the best, a quick search turns up plenty of other mentions in the media and elsewhere that help make the company notable. Article content and sources should be expanded and improved rather than deleting the entry entirely. Some sections need to be rewritten to reflect a more neutral point of view. Commonlaw99 (talk) 18:24, 17 April 2015 (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.