Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mayerson Law

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. Sandstein 20:05, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mayerson Law[edit]

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

Non-notable law firm. A firm with only 5 attorneys, whose "notable litigation" may well amount to a fair bit of puffery, given that several of the citations used to not mention the firm at all. There is no reliable source to indicate that the role this firm played in the Agent Orange litigation or the Ford Truck Safety issues was in any way significant, and other litigation listed as "notable" is really just run-of-the-mill legal work. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:16, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The coverage in the "Waiting for an army to die" is a passing mention of one individual rather than the firm, which cannot inherit whatever notability attaches to that. This just looks like a firm going about its business; fails WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 20:15, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:25, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:25, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:25, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. WP:MILL is only an essay and it happens to be manifest nonsense. The general principle that it tries to assert seems to be the result of someone's spectacular misreading or failed synthesis of a number of disparate policies and guidelines. It is not a helpful essay and it would be better if it was never mentioned at AfD ever again. James500 (talk) 15:28, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I cited WP:MILL not as the policy in question that is violated, but simply as a touchstone for the kind of article that we have here. The coverage of the firm in question is minimal at best, because they have really not done anything extraordinary that would result in any real significant coverage. In other words, they are a "run-of-the-mill" law firm that has not received any particular attention. It is the lack of particular attention (i.e. no significant coverage) that is the fault here. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:37, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails my standards. These lawyers are just doing for their cients what is required by Model Rule 1.1 -- to be competent. That does not make them notable as a law firm. Bearian (talk) 22:10, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Hy Mayerson might be marginally notable. Bearian (talk) 13:55, 9 January 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.