Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gideon Fisher & Co.

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. v/r - T P 20:28, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gideon Fisher & Co.[edit]

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

A quick Google search comes up with about 15k hits, the total of the searches in western and hebrew script. Looks to fail WP:GNG Notability is not inherited from mr. Eliyahu Winograd.No article about the Parlex Group. The article gives me the idea of an advertisement and selfpromo. Night of the Big Wind _talk 18:02, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:42, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:42, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No indication that the firm is notable. Yes, one partner is, but, as we discussed on the prior related AfD, notability is not inherited. This article was created by the same editor who had created (or perhaps was the primary editor of; with the article gone, I cannot check) the now-deleted Gideon Fisher article, and created it immediately after the Gideon Fisher article's deletion, after being one of only two individuals arguing for its retention. He or she is a WP:SPA editor who has made no contributions outside of promoting this firm and seems determined to have an article on either Fisher the firm or Fisher the individual. TJRC (talk) 22:22, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe there are three factors that justify this article: 1. The firm’s founder is a judge in the ICC court. The International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) is the largest business organization in the world so this directly impacts the notability of the firm. 2. Eliyahu Winograd is a key figure in the firm which directly impacts the notability of the firm. I acknowledge that notability of a person does not transfer to another individual but being a key figure in a firm does directly impact the firm. 3. The firm is the only representative from its country in the Parlex group which is also a large international group. Re your comment about me-I am a new wikipedia editor but do have already several of articles that I created in non-english wikipedias. After the debate about Gideon Fisher it seemed to me that it would be more appropriate to have an article on the firm rather than on the individual and that is why I created this article after the personal one was deleted. Please note that I have no connection to this firm (other than knowing it). Malevs (talk) 09:11, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not inherited. So the fact that one partner is notable, says nothing about the company. Night of the Big Wind _talk 09:28, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, exactly as Night of the Big Wind says. Malevs's first first point argues for notability inherited from its partner Gideon Fisher; the second point argues for notability inherited from its partner Eliyahu Winograd; the third point argues for notability inherited from Parlex. Because notability is not inherited, none of these are good arguments. The second argument fails on this basis alone, but the other two arguments are on even worse footing, because even absent WP:NOTINHERITED, these arguments are based on claims of notability that have either been refuted (in the case of Gideon Fisher, deleted on notability grounds at AfD) or never established (in the case of Parlex, which has no article and has been twice-deleted, once as a PROD and once as a Speedy WP:A7). TJRC (talk) 18:08, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 10:36, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:08, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm wondering why this is continually relisted. Only the editor who created the article seeks to keep it, and all of his arguments are based on a faulty belief that notability is inherited (where in a couple cases the supposedly inherited notability is either not established or refuted). TJRC (talk) 20:56, 5 April 2012 (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.