Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Stinemetz Law Firm

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. One WP:SPA ignored, arguments for deletion were valid. Arguments for keep were of the inherited notability variety, which are not deemed valid. JERRY ^talk _contribs 03:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Stinemetz Law Firm[edit]

non notable law firm Excariver (talk) 19:27, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Note coverage in Houston Business Journal and in other reliable sources. --Eastmain (talk) 20:47, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I originally tagged this for speedy and then removed it when more references were added, but I warned the author that it read like a news release and still needed work. Alas, the material added since then has made that situation worse, not better. The law firm is marginally notable, and the article is very much promotional despite the sources. I don't see this article getting any better, and I suspect there's also a COI involved here as well. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 22:25, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote this article in an attempt to give presence on Wikipedia of what I think is a trend in the legal services industry. It appears though that I am running afoul of rules that I was not aware of, for which I sincerely apologize. I also truly respect your efforts to keep Wikipedia clean of promotional rif-raf. I am willing to rewrite the article per some specific guidelines. I understand that some may think that it is not notable. Which I think is in the eye of the beholder. There are hundreds of articles out there on Wiki dedicated to law firms, and the only difference with this one is the number of attorneys they employ. They all have the same business model. This one doesn't, and it is representative of an emerging trend. However, if the majority consensus is that it should be deleted, then so be it. By the way, I also wrote the original article on the high school that I attended. Perhaps that was a COI as well. --Ivodjambov (talk) 23:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your understanding. In a nutshell, each subject stands or falls on its own merits and notability. Those law firms which have articles already have usually made themselves notable through participation in notable cases, longevity, well-known partners, or other things that have put those firms in the public eye. Frankly, there are a number of articles about law firms that don't really belong, but we haven't gotten around to them yet. (We have a lot of articles to keep an eye on around here!) We also get lots and lots of articles about companies of all kinds that are written by owners or employees that are meant to promote the company, so we keep a particularly close watch for those. As for your high school, I suspect that nearly every such article here has substantial work done by current or former students, so as long as the articles aren't overtly promotional, COI usually gets a pass on those articles. Besides, high schools are held to be pretty much automatically notable by longstanding convention. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 01:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Note coverage in Houston Business Journal. That guy Stinemetz was also quoted in today's Wall Street Journal. --Laddicks (talk) 01:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Citation, please? - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 02:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- i don't know about the WSJ but here's an assorted list of references from the Financial Times: http://search.ft.com/search?queryText=stinemetz&aje=true&dse=&dsz= --Ivodjambov (talk) 02:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- and a couple of references from the Houston Chronicle http://search.chron.com/chronicle/search.do --Ivodjambov (talk) 02:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: I'm seeing a trend here. We seem to be doing a good job of asserting the notability of Doug Stinemetz, but not necessarily his firm. Many of the links provided refer to his work with his former firm (and the only Chron link relevant to the firm simply refers back to another ref in the HBJ). I'm beginning to wonder of a beter course of action would be to have an article about Doug Stinemetz himself, with a section about the firm as a part of that. I realize it's a semantic difference, but it's an important one. How does that sound? - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 02:33, 12 February 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.