Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greenberg Glusker

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. j⚛e decker ^talk 17:21, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Greenberg Glusker[edit]

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

Represented a number of important companies, but not in any particularly imporrtant case. a; any coverage they received in the press would have been merely incidental. "Top 100 E entertainment lawyers" is not an award, and does not provide notability Everything else is pure PR. DGG ( talk ) 19:18, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of substantial coverage in reliable indpeendent sources. Article appears to be paid promotion with misleading cites etc. Candleabracadabra (talk) 00:57, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, noteworthy secondary source coverage including The New York Times and The Hollywood Reporter, among numerous others. — Cirt (talk) 17:03, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 434 hits in Newsbank. Once press releases are eliminated, down to 142. Many of these are duplicated wire-service stories and I can't see how to count that automatically, but never mind. Mostly they are quotes from people who work there, e.g. "X, a partner at Greenberg Glusker, said her client was entitled to something really over-the-top for incomprehensible reasons." Many of them are public notice ads, e.g. "We can't serve you but you better show up in court next Tuesday." One of them, this one, from the Mercury News in 2008, actually discusses the firm in more than a passing way. However, by itself, it's not even close to enough to satisfy WP:NCORP.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:30, 6 March 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.