Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bermans (2nd nomination)

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:57, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bermans[edit]

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

Unsourced article about non-notable law firm. Andrew³²⁷ 13:43, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I'm fixing the nom, as this wasn't originally done correctly. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:13, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 9 July 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, L Faraone 00:21, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Source searches are not yielding significant coverage in reliable sources. Passing mentions abound (e.g. [1], [2], [3]), but not finding WP:SIGCOV. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:35, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I feel sure that I have seen this firm in a context suggesting that it is involved in debt collecting on a large scale. This suggests that it is significant, and that those receiving its missives will find having a WP article on it useful. Nevertheless it is a poor article, lacking citations. Heavily tag for improvement. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:42, 20 July 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:56, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm sorry, but there's nothing there right now. Peterkingiron, would you want it userfied? --BDD (talk) 17:52, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of coverage, place (userfy) in author's sandbox. The firm exists, it is not that there is no coverage, but that it is all incidental, no significant independent coverage. I would very much like to see, and have a citation to, the article that Peterkingiron thinks she/he might have seen. Surely if they are as large and innovative a firm as the article indicates then they ought to have picked up some decent coverage in the specialty publications (law, finance). --Bejnar (talk) 16:59, 31 July 2013 (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.