Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Olsha Law Firm
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. Revolving Bugbear 12:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Olsha Law Firm[edit]
- Olsha Law Firm (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Appears to be insufficiently notable. Googling Olsha Kiev law finds only a dozen or so unique hits, and even Googling in Cyrillic - ОЛША - finds very few. Note the conflict of interest: see WP:COIN#User:Olaffpomona. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 21:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- firm keep the legal professional is a proimninent part of the world and it only makes sense the articles relating to it are allowed to prove their own notability. it seems unfair to rush off to a delete vote without even giving an obvious stub article a chance to develop. who knows??? maybe this will even become a Featured Article after all??? unlikely, possibly, bu stranger things have happened. Smith Jones (talk) 23:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you kidding? I'm well aware of the risk of systemic bias, but this is a firm whose web presence extends to two single-page entries on free web hosting sites and, as far as I can tell, no site in its native language. For a company in a major city like Kiev, that is seriously one-horse league. See Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies): where are the reliable independent sources that are the criteria for establishing notability? Gordonofcartoon (talk) 00:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- well obviously its not hyper-extremely noable now but with the fall of the soviet union and ew new system of laws in ukraine is is prefectly reasonable for a new and qite possibly pre-eminent lawfirm to have its own articles. at the very least it deserves the publicit.y as for its lack of a web presence [1][2][3] here. admittedly, that is a few but a large web presence is not theonly indicator of notability. i honestly recommend that that a search using Ukrainian lettering instead of cyrillic and in Ukraine itself might yield a lot more source sthan previously extant. i would like a few days to conduct one myself please before this article is rushed off to the gas chambers like so many other stub articles. Smith Jones (talk) 21:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ukrainian lettering is Cyrillic, unless Romanized, and I tried both. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 12:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- well obviously its not hyper-extremely noable now but with the fall of the soviet union and ew new system of laws in ukraine is is prefectly reasonable for a new and qite possibly pre-eminent lawfirm to have its own articles. at the very least it deserves the publicit.y as for its lack of a web presence [1][2][3] here. admittedly, that is a few but a large web presence is not theonly indicator of notability. i honestly recommend that that a search using Ukrainian lettering instead of cyrillic and in Ukraine itself might yield a lot more source sthan previously extant. i would like a few days to conduct one myself please before this article is rushed off to the gas chambers like so many other stub articles. Smith Jones (talk) 21:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you kidding? I'm well aware of the risk of systemic bias, but this is a firm whose web presence extends to two single-page entries on free web hosting sites and, as far as I can tell, no site in its native language. For a company in a major city like Kiev, that is seriously one-horse league. See Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies): where are the reliable independent sources that are the criteria for establishing notability? Gordonofcartoon (talk) 00:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Inclusion in legal directories is not evidence of notability. Is there no press coverage? What about important clients, or major cases? EdJohnston (talk) 01:41, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, no evidence of notability. Fram (talk) 08:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete not notable. MBisanz talk 06:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Lacks notability, fails notability (organizations and companies) guideline. — Athaenara ✉ 01:44, 2 March 2008 (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.