Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bennett Jones

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. Primefac (talk) 02:29, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bennett Jones[edit]

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

Delete as there are no indications of notability and the provided references are PRIMARY sources, fail the criteria for intellectually independent coverage and fail WP:ORGIND and/or WP:CORPDEPTH HighKing⁺⁺ 20:39, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:00, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:00, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:00, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and flag for cleanup. There are indications of notability here — several notable former partners, international offices, etc. — and while it's true that most of the references here are primary sources right now, there are also some citations already present to real reliable source media coverage, and a firm that was established in 1922 and grew as much as this one has in the intervening century will have more media coverage than can be expected to turn up in a simple Google search. Bearcat (talk) 18:05, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:30, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

weak Keep. Law firms have been a problem here, and our usual sourcing criteria are hard to apply, but I think this is over the boundaary for importance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 05:46, 16 April 2018 (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.