Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deacons (law firm)

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. Cirt (talk) 00:10, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deacons (law firm)[edit]

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

This one is probably a tough call to make. I am listing this for AfD because

a) The only sources given are the firms own website while the other links are dead (notabiliy?)

b) It reeks of self-promotion (spam?)

c) It has been the target of some rather obvious, possibly socking, SPAs (COI?) (see article's history)

Please give your opinions. Thank you. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 05:11, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. With 160 attorneys and a 150-year history, this is a fairly significant law firm, and from what I can tell the deals it handles are pretty important ones. But the "Significant Achievements" sections reads like a corporate brochure and needs to be cut down or eliminated -- significant in whose eyes, I wonder? That's a loaded issue right there. --Glenfarclas (talk) 11:16, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with a lot of the nominators comments, but I think notability is demonstrated. I would think the first step should be to reduce it to a stub, getting rid of the 'achievements' and 'areas of expertise' sections. For one thing, prose is generally better than a list, and I would like there to be some independent coverage. Maybe someone with a bit more knowledge in the area could comment on how significant the achievements are - these business awards are often two a penny. Quantpole (talk) 11:28, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with above, it is a notable law firm, but the article needs a lot of cleanup as it is written like an advert as it stands. DRosin (talk) 12:40, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snow/Speedy Keep. I agree that it needs clean-up. But the AfDs are busy enough--it really shouldn't be used as a mechanism to prompt others to clean up the spam, etc., in an article that clearly is a keep. Part of the problem of course may be the COI of user:202.82.152.15, who is at the firm.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:55, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but clean up. Clearly notable, but much of the article is marketing puffery. TJRC (talk) 21:10, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Internationally well-known law firm, plenty of cites exists, see Findlaw.com, Martindale, etc. Bearian (talk) 01:29, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nominator suggested looking at the article's history, but doesn't seem to have done so him/herself. When I removed the WP:PROD tag from this I added these sources to the article, with an appropriate edit summary, but someone has removed them since. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:41, 17 December 2009 (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.