Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Riverview Legal Services

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:21, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Riverview Legal Services[edit]

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

Non-notable local law firm. Has run-of-the-mill coverage. Inclusion in Wikipedia is promotional rather than encyclopedic.

Already speedy-deleted once, and resubmitted. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:43, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:19, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:19, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable lawfirm that lacks extensive coverage outside of press releases and trival mentions. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:PROMO. As stated by Robert McClenon (talk), article has been speedy deleted in the past. SamHolt6 (talk) 15:17, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As above. Bluehotel (talk)
Delete: An article on a paralegal firm, sourced to a Google page and local coverage of a couple of cases in which they were involved. I am seeing nothing to establsh notability by WP:CORPDEPTH or WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 13:11, 5 September 2017 (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.