Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bech-Bruun

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:22, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bech-Bruun[edit]

Bech-Bruun (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)

Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. Sources offered are WP:PRIMARY, trivial (a directory listing) or routine coverage (merger or office location). Googling turned up nothing useful. Wikipedia is not for WP:PROMOTION. Msnicki (talk) 08:37, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 10:28, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 10:28, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 10:29, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: An article from one of a country's largest newspapers which states that the firm after the merger rivals another firm's position as the largest in the industry in that country os a primary source? The source for revenues is copy-pasted from Wikipedia's own List of largest European law firms (excluding UK) (2012). I know that a Wikipedia page is never a relevant source but surely a source which is good enough for one article is also good enough for others, right? So shouldn't you pick on that list too then? Several smaller law firms on that list from comparable contries have articles. Looking through some categories of " law firms of XXX" from comparable countries, I see plenty of (poorly sourced) articles on law firms that are not are too small to be on that list. Based on that, I don't understand the grounds for questioning Bech-Bruun's notability. That is not to say that it is a particularly informative or well-sourced article, hence the stub tag. I can assure you that I have no interest in promoting anything here. I was simply tidying up Danish company categories and trying to get some missing ones started. Denmark was one of few comparable countries where not a single law firm was covered so covering a few of the largest ones seemed a sensible thing to do. I am not saying that size is the only criteria for establishing notability (U an aware that it isn't) but some of the other articles that I looked on about smaller firms certainly didn't make it clear what other criteria made that firm particularly notable. As for your unsuccessful google search, there are plenty of references to the company out there so I am not sure what you wanted to gind. If anything, this discussion should be of a more general character: Are to many similar firms covered? This firm is no more, no less notable than plenty of others.Ramblersen (talk) 03:01, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:BIGNUMBER, "A commonly seen argument at AfD is "Subject has X number of Y, that's notable/non-notable". Notability isn't determined by something's quantity of members, but rather by the quality of the subject's verifiable, reliable sources."
And from WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, "The nature of Wikipedia means that you cannot make a convincing argument based solely on what other articles do or do not exist; because there is nothing stopping anyone from creating any article. ... Plenty of articles exist that probably should not. Equally, because articles must wait for someone who is interested in the subject to notice they are missing before they are created, a lot of articles do not exist that probably should. So just pointing out that an article on a similar subject exists does not prove that the article in question should also exist; it is quite possible that the other article should also be deleted but nobody has noticed it and listed it for deletion yet."
Both of these are what we refer to WP:Arguments to avoid. Msnicki (talk) 03:12, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
1) I do not agree that pointing out that a law firm is one of the largest (second largest) and most well-known in the industry in a particular country is a "Subject has X number of Y"-argument. I did not say that this firm is notable because it has x employees, y offices of revenues of z. I see a big difference here, perhaps you don't. 2) I did not say that this article should be kept because of what other articles are out there (I have already pointed out why I think it is notable), I simply pointed out that it would make sense to include other article in this discussion since I think you apply extremely restrictive criteria for notanility in this case tp get a more general discussion and a more consistant practice. So to make this point heard I should start mass-nominating law firm articles from other countries or what? I simply don't understand the basis for questioning the notability of this particular article. It would have been much more helpful if you had pointed out what sort of information would actually be able to establish notability, then I could try to provide it.Ramblersen (talk) 03:59, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, fair enough. What it takes, as explained at WP:GNG, is significant coverage in multiple reliable independent secondary sources. Each of those words has a specific meaning here on Wikipedia. Significant means it can't be a bunch of trivial mentions. Multiple means more than one. Reliable means the source as reputation for fact-checking and editorial control. Independent means no connection to the subject. Secondary means that it contains the author's own thoughts, not merely a recitation of whatever the subject has published in, e.g., a press release. Individual editors may interpret these requirements differently but my sense is the gold standard is a couple 1000-word articles about the subject. We don't have that here. Hope that helps. Msnicki (talk) 05:44, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What GNG actually says is "multiple sources are generally expected" (emphasis added). "Generally", in ordinary language, means "most of the time but there might be exceptional cases". James500 (talk) 22:15, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there are exceptions, but we have guidance on what exceptions are allowed. See my earlier remark below re: WP:CORPDEPTH#Commercial organizations. Msnicki (talk) 02:16, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • As regards GNG, "significant" is qualitative, not quantitative. A trivial mention is something like an entry in a phonebook or being cited as a source. GNG certainly does not require thousands of words, or anything approachingthat. Notability does not preclude the possibilityof merger into a broader topic, so length is not an issue in of itself in that regard. If this company is the second biggest law firm in Denmark, the worst case scenario is merger into, and redirectionto, a list of the biggest law firms or an article on law firms in Denmark or some supra-national area or something like that. James500 (talk) 11:13, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
These are very helpful remarks explaining how we decide notability and how a subject that isn't sufficiently notable to stand as separate article might be merged into another one. It's also possible to request userfication if you'd like to continue working on the article while you look for sources. Msnicki (talk) 19:36, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"how a subject that isn't sufficiently notable to stand as separate article might be merged into another one" - No, what I said is that a topic can be notable, period, within the meaning of N and still end up being merged for other reasons. I infer from that that whether coverage is significanthas nothing to do with the number of column inches etc. A single sentence might be significantcoverage if what it says is sufficiently important, but it will only get a separate article if there is no suitable target for merger. James500 (talk) 21:58, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That would have to be quite some sentence and I think I'd need to see it first. The exceptions would be matters of fact that we can accept in lieu of sources under the guidelines as creating a presumption of notability. For example, per WP:ATHLETE, any athlete who wins an Olympic medal is automatically notable, even if there are no sources beyond the official results. For alternate criteria that might apply to a law firm, please see WP:CORPDEPTH#Commercial organizations. Msnicki (talk) 22:06, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for elaborating on the criteria for notability, Msnicki. What I don't get is why anyone would question that a law firm which is the second largest in a given country is able to meet the need for "significant coverage in multiple reliable independent secondary sources". There are numerous references to Bech Bruun in all major Danish media so I suppose only "significant' can be questioned. Here is a link to an analasis from Berlingske Media of the top 20 players in the Danish legal services industry. A search on FinanceWatch, an industry-based news service operated by JP/Politikens Hus, provides 30 pages of hits. Here are the 45 pages of hits on Dagbladet Børsen's (Denmark's leading business newspaper) website. By all means, all of these sources could contain only insignificant references to the firm, many no doubt do. But do you seriously doubt that plenty of them (as in multiple) contain information which could be used for an expansion of the current stub? Why would I want to request a userfication while I continue working on the article? I have no interestin writing a longer article about this firm, that is why I only made a stuch in the first place, something that I hardly ever do but Wikipedia condoles and is full of. As far as I have understood, it shouldn't take an expansion to stop a speedy deletion but just documention that the subject matter is notable. I have tried to do so and have already spend more time on this than I intended in the first place. And the initial speedy deletion-nominationøs claim that his stub is promotional and lacks reliable independent secondary sources is simply incorrect. All it does is to point out that Bech-Bruun is the second largest law firm in Denmark (in an attempt to document/indicate notability, I suppose the patient died), which does indeed follow from two independent, reliable sources (more than most stubs out there have) as well as Wikipedia's list of [[1]] (where one of the references is apparently good enough or should it be tagged or nominated?).Ramblersen (talk) 02:41, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Size alone is not sufficient to establish notability. The essence of notability is not that people should take note, but that they do take note and that they do it in reliable independent sources, offering their own secondary thoughts. Msnicki (talk) 03:16, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The article currently cites Berlingske and Jyllands Posten, two of Denmark's main newspapers. Is the nominator contending that these are not reliable sources? Or that those citations can not count towards notability for some other reason? So far as I can tell from my effectively non-existent knowledge of Danish, the coverage in the Berlingske article cited looks substantial enough to count towards notability, while the Jyllands Posten one, while slightly more than a passing mention, only helps very slightly towards notability. To the defenders of the article - can you find a couple more independent reliable sources that discuss Bech-Bruun in as much, or preferably more, detail as the Berlingske one? And, please, specific ones - just presenting other editors with search pages of results in a language most of us don't understand doesn't really help us come to a decision. PWilkinson (talk) 15:59, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with the newspaper sources is not reliability. The problem is that they offer only routine or trivial coverage and lack any secondary analysis. Did you try reading them with Google translate?
The Berlingske article (translated) reports only that the subject merged with another firm. The only quotes are from a managing partner of one firm and the chairman of the other. No additional analysis is given. This looks to me like routine coverage of the subject's press release, the reporter probably doing little more than trimming for length but happy to have a byline. From WP:CORPDEPTH, "Acceptable sources under this criterion include all types of reliable sources except works carrying merely trivial coverage, such as ... brief announcements of mergers or sales of part of the business". And from WP:SECONDARY, "A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's interpretation, analysis, or evaluation of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources." Without that secondary analysis, this is still a WP:PRIMARY source.
The Jyllands-Posten article (translated) is even less helpful. It's not even about the subject, it's about a hotel chain taking space in an apartment building. The only mention of the subject is a single sentence mentioning that the subject will be moving into the building's upper floors. This is the essence of a trivial mention. Msnicki (talk) 18:47, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have (in vain) tried to ask for what sort of information would qualify as "non-trivial" in the eyes of those who question Bech-Bruun's notability. Most recently, the firm has received a lot of attention in Danish media after a DR documentary criticized a partner's involvement tax evasion. Here is an article which most definitely won't be based on a press release from the firm. Here is another critical article about the firm (from 2007) which won't be based on any press releases either. There are plenty of articles that document the firm's dominant position in the Danish market for legal services. I have added two references to the article's lead that descripes it as part of the "BIG Four" in Denmark. This analasis of the top 20 law firms in Denmark will also provide various details on Bech-Bruun's position but access to the analasis proper requires payment. I know that size in itself is not enough but a dominant market position within a fairly high-profile industry such as legal services (we are not talking a wholeseller of plastic boxes) should imo indicate notability. Lawyers from the firm are consistently referred to as "top attorneys" (topadvokater) in Danish media, see for instance here and here (critical) and here (critical). Here is a portrait of the firm's managing partner, Randi Bech-Poulsen, referring to her as the "attorney's first lady". Needless to say that attorneys from such a big and high-profile firm is involved in plenty of high-profile cases if that is of relevance. [ http://www.business.dk/forside/danske-topadvokater-satser-paa-kina This] article is about the opening of an office in Shanghai and the strategy behind it.[User:Ramblersen|Ramblersen]] (talk) 10:21, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't tried in vain to ask. I've answered. What you've tried in vain to do is offer up sources that I don't believe meet our guidelines for reasons I've cited. But different editors will have different takes on the matter. I'm just one. Perhaps others will join the discussion and there will be a WP:CONSENSUS to keep, over my objection.
I did look at these additional cites. 1 is about a new attorney who got into trouble providing tax advice in a DR broadcast; the subject comes up only because he works there (but it doesn't sound like he did this on their time) and the only reporting about the subject is long verbatim quote from the subject. 2 is about one of the partners being found to have breached professional ethics. This is weak but borderline per WP:ONEEVENT. Some editors might go for this. 3 is one sentence stating (vaguely) that the subject is growing. 4 is about one of the partners, not about the subject, except to say he works there. 5 talks about the Nielsen case and about the subject. This one is a possible. 6 adds nothing useful. 7 is about a female attorney who works there, not about the subject. 8 is about the subject's expansion to Shanghai. This is better than the merger story but still appears to have likely been written from the subject's press release. (Notice there are no quotes from anyone but the one managing partner.)
Other editors may go for this. I think it's still a bit weak. Let's see what others say. Msnicki (talk) 21:17, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: While it may not be a vanity entry, it certainly reads like one. The otherwise RS sources simply contain incidental mentions of subject. DocumentError (talk) 07:42, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. The entire discussion here is obviously based on the nominator's lack of familiarity with Danish sources. First of all, the firm is mentioned here in Den Store Danske, Denmark's most reliable encyclopaedia. Second, a quick search on Danish library sources turns up a long list of books:
https://www.bibliotek.dk/da/search/work/Bech-Bruun?sort=date_descending&qe[year.op][0]=year_eq&page_id=bibdk_frontpage#content
in which Bech-Bruun either contributes to the authoring or appears in discussion of legal matters of one kind or another. I fully agree with Ramblersen that it is important to include this firm in EN Wikipedia. When reading books about Denmark, I often consult Wikipedia to find background on the firms or authors mentioned. I imagine there must be many more like me. I have absolutely no doubt that there will be no difficulty in expanding on the article from reliable sources but a start needs to be made somewhere. Please allow the article's creator to continue with his valuable work. In my opinion, there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever about the firm's notability, even in regard to Wikipedia's criteria.--Ipigott (talk) 17:40, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would accept an actual article in an encyclopedia as a suitable source for establishing notability. But that's not what we have here. The Den Storee Danske page is obviously a wiki page. Notice the anonymous individuals listed as having created or edited the page. Wiki pages, even on otherwise suitable sites, are considered questionable sources and do not count towards notability per WP:USERGENERATED. Msnicki (talk) 17:38, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GOOGLEHITS is what we consider an argument to avoid. The fact that something turns up lots of hits on Google cannot be used to establish notability. We require specific sources. If there's a specific book you found through Google that you think we should accept, post the link and we can discuss it. But just lots of hits is not enough.
The link you did give is to a directory listing, which is not helpful in establishing notability. From WP:CORPDEPTH, "Acceptable sources under this criterion include all types of reliable sources except works carrying merely trivial coverage, such as: ... the publications of telephone numbers, addresses, and directions in business directories". Msnicki (talk) 17:38, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
LOL, says who? The most important thing is that article subjects have wide coverage in multiple reliable sources. The fact that google books has so many potential sources immediately makes this a legitimate article. If you seriously think otherwise you have no place editing wikipedia. This doesn't stand a snowball in hell's chance of being deleted. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:31, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Says the sections of the guidelines I cited. Msnicki (talk) 02:24, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, again there should be better research done before posting AfDs, this firm is clearly notable (any firm with 70+ million Euro revenue is definately notable). --Soman (talk) 18:43, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Uhm, no. A WP:BIGNUMBER is not enough to establish notability. Msnicki (talk) 17:38, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary page break because this page is so long that I am having real difficulty editing it[edit]

  • Keep. Satisfies GNG. The sources are not just in Danish either. There are books in English which discuss this firm such as The European Legal 500 by Pritchard. James500 (talk) 19:00, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The only Legal 500 listing I could find appears to be merely a directory listing, which is not helpful in establishing notability, again per WP:CORPDEPTH. Msnicki (talk) 17:38, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You know perfectly well that I was referring to this series of books. James500 (talk) 01:11, 27 December 2013 (UTC) Try also these books: [2][3] James500 (talk) 01:57, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what you mean when all you do is give a name but nothing more. It's supposed to mean you've looked at it and offer it up as a helpful source. But that's not when I'm finding. I searched on the publisher's site and found nothing useful there. I also looked at the sources in your new links and those also offer only directory listings. None of these satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH. Have you found an article on one of these sources that's more than that? Msnicki (talk) 02:24, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would not characterize the material in those three books as "directory listings" and, having read CORPDEPTH carefully, I am not convinced that it is engaged. James500 (talk) 06:32, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Hmm. This AfD has languished for 5 days, then suddenly it gets 4 keeps, all offering non-guidelines-based reasons in less than 2 hours? This looks suspiciously like WP:Canvassing. Msnicki (talk) 17:38, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Um, has it occurred to you that several of us watch each other's edits?♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:33, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Has it occurred to you I wasn't born yesterday? Msnicki (talk) 20:56, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You know perfectly well that I got here through Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Law. James500 (talk) 01:11, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have no way of knowing that. Msnicki (talk) 02:24, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It should be obvious from the extent of my presence on that page and in its archives. James500 (talk) 06:32, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ethically (Yours) 07:04, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Upgrading to Strong Delete After reading Msnicki's well-reasoned arguments in this matter, I would like to upgrade my previously stated opinion from Delete to Strong Delete. Further, the "second-biggest" of anything is not prima facie evidence of notability, particularly in reference to small states like Denmark, Paraguay, etc., as some have suggested. DocumentError (talk) 07:54, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no real difference between "delete" and "strong delete". Deletion is very unlikely in this case because there are plausible targets for merger. I was told some time ago by another user that it was a rule of thumb that companies with revenues on the order of one hundred hundred million dollars were likely to receive significant coverage, so it would be suprising (but presumably not impossible) if this one hasn't. James500 (talk) 08:41, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to understand why there is a need for relisting. I have contributed additional content to the article since this discussion began and could add lots more which would even more clearly indicate the firm's notability. I strongly believe however that the information I have contributed to the article itself as well as the indications I have already given in the initial discussion (above) should be more than sufficient to justify notability. A Danish law firm's strong presence in China and Russia is also notable as is clear from their publications and discussion of their activities in independent publications. What particular type of information are the detractors actually looking for?? --Ipigott (talk) 15:25, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What additional content? You've contributed a single edit, adding a link to a wiki page, an obviously WP:USERGENERATED source. Msnicki (talk) 16:52, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good point about small states. The smallest firm on our List of 100 largest law firms has $342 million in revenue. The subject's revenue of €76.9 million (= $106.1 million) is less than 1/3 that amount. How long would the list need to be to include them? The largest 1,000? Msnicki (talk) 17:16, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Great point! DocumentError (talk) 18:00, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No it isn't a good point at all. Djibouti's top law firm could earn $50 annually but it would still be notable if it was covered in multiple reliable sources. You couldn't possibly compare its earnings to some of the US giants. And it's the same with mainland Europe firms most of which are not going to be comparable to the top US firms in terms of revenue. This firm is ranked 39th in mainland Europe in earnings so it's hardly a local low status law firm.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:39, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A thousand entries is not obviously innappropriate are there are commercially published lists of that length:[4] [5]. And here is a bibliography of some more of these publications which specifically mentions books with 1000 and 700 entries respectively. And a description of another. James500 (talk) 23:12, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And there is nothing to stop us from having a list of the biggest law firms by country. And that would be entirely appropriate because these countries have their own independent legal systems that are run in different ways. James500 (talk) 23:27, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a directory per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. And any list would still have to satisfy notability guidelines per WP:LISTN. Msnicki (talk) 02:05, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see how NOTDIRECTORY is applicable to this. Also VAGUEWAVE. Which one of the six criteria do you think is engaged and why? James500 (talk) 02:26, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing WP:VAGUEWAVE about this except just own invocation of it. No one doubts that there are published directories of lists containing thousands of entries. Wikipedia is not one of them per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Msnicki (talk) 02:32, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is not clear to me that NOTDIRECTORY says any such thing. Could you please pick out the specific words that you think are applicable. James500 (talk) 02:54, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Wikipedia is not a directory of everything in the universe that exists or has existed." Msnicki (talk) 06:23, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you seriously think that the current article is a directory listing or that it doesn't already pass general notability guidelines and our verification policies then you really have no place editing wikipedia. You're continuing to argue a point with no credibility or claim to delete. The article doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell in being deleted. Accept it and move on.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:00, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A list of the thousand largest law firms would clearly not be "a directory of everything in the universe that exists or has existed". List of everything would be, but the list I suggested would not be even remotely close to that. James500 (talk) 09:04, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As for the supposedly good point about small states and the firm not making the List of 100 largest law firms by revenue, where in Wikipedia's guidelines does it say that something should be among the 100 largest of something to be notable? And you sure have a lot of cleaning up to do. Have a look at this List of largest U.S. law firms by number of lawyers where plenty of firms outside Top 100 are covered all the way down to Dow Lohnes as #346 (and the few that are not covered are all red linked so I assume someone finds them notable). So I REALLY hope that it will be okay to cover more than the 100 largest law firms worldwide or not much will be left for the rest of the world. And does your 'Top 100 of something' arguments also apply to other industries? Or, more generally, other subjects? As fot the 'small state' argument, New Zealand, an economy considerably smaller than that of Denmark, has 11 articles in Category:Law firms of New Zealand and they even have Template:Law firms of New Zealand. Just to pick a random example. I know that you cannot use other articles' existence to argue that this one should be kept (cf. the above discussion) but we should try to apply objective and consistant standards on Wikipedia, right?Ramblersen (talk) 06:34, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep For obvious reasons. Easily passes GNG. Bad faith and highly irritating behaviour by the nominator who ought to be trout slapped for behaving in this manner.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:13, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You already !voted. Please WP:AGF. Personal attacks do not help. Msnicki (talk) 16:09, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It has been relisted, how dare you strike out my vote.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:42, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisting does not give you another !vote. It invites other editors to !vote. Msnicki (talk)
No, it is what it says on the tin, a relisted AFD.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:55, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Various different reliable independent sources tell us the firm was founded in 1872, lately merged with another firm, is part of the big four legal firms in Denmark, has moved into grandiose headquarters along Copenhagen harbor, is expanding in China etc. etc. This is clearly a notable firm. Notability is nothing to do with size, only with whether the subject has been noted. With that amount of coverage it would be notable even if it only had two partners, both semi-retired. (If it is relevant, I came across this discussion because I was watching Blofeld's edits.) Aymatth2 (talk) 14:15, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Arguing WP:LOTSOFSOURCES without specifying which ones you rely on is yet another argument to avoid. Msnicki (talk) 16:09, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're becoming extremely tiresome. Read what I say about people who essay war on my user page.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:44, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - One of four major recognized legal firms. Plenty of sources, plenty of coverage to meet GNG. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:23, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep For the reasons already stated (if I am allowed to vote on this, being the creator of this surprisingly controversial stub, I wouldn't know since I usually don't waste my time on futile discussions like this). @ Msnicki: I miss a comment on the List of largest U.S. law firms by number of lawyers. You seem better at rejecting other people's arguments than looking on your own. What reads like a directory here, that list or the Bech-Bruun stub?Ramblersen (talk) 16:57, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And if we can have several hundred articles on US law firms why would it be a major problem having 3 or 4 articles on top Danish law firms? If anything we ought to have at least 20 articles. So long as they're well sourced and encyclopedic. Sometimes OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is the best way to show why something is acceptable (aside from having hundreds of possible sources of course). As it stands we have several reliable sources which claim a] It is one of the 500 most notable law firms in the world. b] It is a first-tier rated law firm, meaning it presumably represents the highest level of legal firm practice globally c] It is cited as one of the major 4 law firms of Denmark. What part about this don't you get? It is easily notable. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:19, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Ramblersen. Any editor can !vote. A closing admin would likely read your previous remarks as keep but it's appropriate to state your view definitively.
Re: the list of largest firms, you and others have remarked (e.g., 1, 2) that the subject's size alone should establish notability. DocumentError and I were remarking that not only is that not a very good argument under our guidelines per WP:BIGNUMBER, it's also not a very good one on the facts: The subject is actually not that big. Re: the list itself, our guidelines for deciding the notability of a list are at WP:LISTN. I'm not here to defend the guidelines. I just try to follow them. Msnicki (talk) 17:44, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ignore silly essays which were written by editors like you or I as a rough guide. They generally contradict each other. Common sense dictates that this is a notable firm as one of the top 4 Danish legal firms and the article more than asserts notability. I agree though that it needs a lot of work and needs a lot of new content to really make it a good article. As I say above earnings don't really matter, it's the amount of sources which document something which matters to an encyclopedia. And you can't really compare most companies worldwide to some of the top earning US firms. It doesn't mean they're not notable.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:56, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. More than enough sources to meet GNG. The article isn't in the best of shape and could be much better, but that certainly is no reason to delete a notable enough subject. - SchroCat (talk) 17:18, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I remain unconvinced there are sources to establish notability. I've looked at every one that's been presented. I don't believe lots of trivial mentions or directory listings meet WP:GNG. But the numbers are clearly against me and I concede it's unlikely any admin would close this as anything but keep, regardless of the arguments. It's also become just too, too unpleasant. Personal remarks simply do not help the quality of any discussion. I've offered one final response to Ramblersen who's disagreed but been respectful. But otherwise, I'm done. Happy holidays, folks. Hope you have a nice 2014. Msnicki (talk) 17:44, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well you would do as you can't accept fault on your part that this is actually notable. I don't see any personal attacks on here. Trout slapping is a commonly used term on here for an established editor who does something contrary to policy. I strongly suggest you look about the website and try to reeducate yourself in what is generally accepted here. We're an open encyclopedia, and as long as articles are backed with multiple reliable sources which at least illustrate some form of notability they're generally accepted. That the company is ranked 39th in terms on earnings on the European continent and one of the top four law firms of Denmark in itself should convince you it is likely worthy of note. I can think of some top film companies in the developing world and even some top US law articles which have very little in terms of extensive coverage about them as establishments in books other than press reports of their releases/cases.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:48, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as it clearly meets WP:GNG requirements. --Rosiestep (talk) 02:38, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As it is included in the on-line encyclopaedia Den Store Danske, published by a large and reputable Danish publisher, there is really no doubt about the notability of the firm. I guess one could argue that Denmark as a whole is just too small and insignificant to need coverage in (the English) Wikipedia, but assuming one agrees that Wikipedia should cover Denmark and Danish society, what should then be regarded as of greater weight in that society and of higher priority to an encyclopaedia: a major law firm, such as Bech-Bruun, or teenage footballers such as Mads Aaquist, Danny Amankwaa, Jacob Dehn Andersen, Kristian Andersen, or Lucas Andersen (just to pick some from the early part of the alphabet)? What do the professional encyclopaedia editors say? Have these young boys been included in any major Danish encyclopaedia? --Hegvald (talk) 03:18, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. When we delete something on notability grounds, we're saying that it's unworthy to be included in an encyclopedia. When the professionals include it in an encyclopedia, who are we to tell them that they're wrong? I don't particularly care about any of the arguments presented above Hegvald's, because his is conclusive — if a professional encyclopedia article can be written on Bech-Bruun, we can have one as well. Nyttend (talk) 21:25, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Am I really the only person here who's actually looked at that Den Store Daske "article" to realize it's not an encyclopedia article at all, it's actually just a WP:USERGENERATED wiki page hosted on the Den Store Danske site? I know this AfD is headed for keep, but oh, my. Msnicki (talk) 23:08, 1 January 2014 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bech-Bruun&oldid=1137603690"