Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wendy Hopkins Family Law Practice LLP

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. Brandon (talk) 07:50, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wendy Hopkins Family Law Practice LLP[edit]

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

Family law firm (3 attorneys) in Cardiff, Wales. Has received a couple of the kind of professional recognitions that many, many firms receive as a matter of course. That doesn't seem like it's enough to meet WP:CORP. Further, the article reads like an advertisement. NawlinWiki (talk) 15:55, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

COI declaration - I work for the firm in question, though I didn't write the article. With regard to the above comments; firstly, 30, not 3 - I assume that was a typo. The firm's notability comes from it being (a) the first and (b) the largest specialist firm in its field in Wales. This article had the {advert} template attached to it almost straight away (which I agree with), given that it needs rewriting to sound less like an advertisement. However, it's a well known firm in South Wales, has received a lot of regional media coverage (as your Google link above shows - or try searching without the "LLP" on the end, which the media almost never use - http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&num=50&q=%22Wendy+Hopkins+Family+Law+Practice%22+-wikipedia&aq=f&oq=&aqi= ), the partners are frequently invited to comment in the Welsh press, on BBC Radio Wales etc on topical family law issues, which seems to me to satisfy WP:N if only the article were better written; your note about the Legal 500 and Chambers & Partners top rankings being "the kind of professional recognitions that many, many firms receive as a matter of course" is fair enough, if you mean "many" in the sense of "two others in Wales, and the other two aren't specialist firms". I don't know why you list the location as part of the AfD nomination unless you're arguing the firm can't be notable because it's in Wales? I'd argue that it's notable because it's the first and biggest of its kind in Wales. Anyway, I think there's enough merit in the subject that this article should be kept, if gutted to a stub and rewritten. 84.92.8.221 (talk) 16:05, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The remarks by the IP address above seem, in part, to check out. In independent sources, the firm is called "Wales's largest firm of family lawyers" (source) and described as "one of the first in the UK to provide a law service for same sex marriage partners" (source). As far as the sources indicate, there are just under thirty staff, about half of whom are "lawyers" (which could mean anything from a senior solicitor to a licenced conveyancer). That's not exactly huge (my own employer has more retained lawyers than that in a single building and we aren't a legal practice), but it's not to be sneezed at either.
Certain other arguments are, admittedly, red herrings. Partners being invited to comment on BBC Wales may indicate that the partner is notable, but that possible notability does not pass down to the practice. Nevertheless, there is a real case for notability here and I am confident that it would be possible to write a sourced, encyclopaedic stub about this practice.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 21:42, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the sources given do not show notability. Unless I am mistaken, family law is not one of the areas where Wales has law-making authority, at least according to Contemporary Welsh Law, so they are not practicing Welsh family law, in which case they might conceivably be notable as the largest firm, but are practicing family law in Wales, which is less significant. The article in my my opinion almost a G11 speedy delete as entirely promotional: my test is the list of areas of practice, which includes everything possibly within scope--which is typical public relations writing for an advertisement or a website. DGG ( talk ) 22:37, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, DGG, are you sure? The largest family law practice in the whole country? I mean, the largest family law practice in the US or Canada or Portugal would be a rather credible claim, wouldn't it? What's the matter with Wales?—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 01:45, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The included source says it is one of the biggest. That does not in and of itself make the company notable. Fails WP:N, WP:CORP. Probably should have been nominated as a speedy delete for spam. Then we have the WP:COI issues. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:26, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:N isn't for companies, is it? That's what WP:CORP is for. Anyway, from what I can see the company satisfies both of those anyway - both seem to be based on coverage in secondary sources, WP:N says "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article" while WP:CORP says "A company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject." Regardless of your own thoughts on what the importance/notability of the first and largest company of its kind based in Wales might be - I note all those calling for deletion are from the US, so perhaps this is a localisation issue or something? - I'd again argue from the various Google hits, above, from reputable third-party sources that it DOES meet the criteria for either of the notability guidelines. I do agree the article doesn't do a good job of emphasising why it's a notable company or citing these sources, but I think it could be effectively rewritten as per WP:FAILN - I'd happily rewrite this article myself to play up the notability and play down the advertising, but as stated above, I have a clear COI and don't want to fall foul of that rule. 84.92.8.221 (talk) 09:44, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS I note Vegaswikian's approach to notability here does not seem to tally with their approach to notability in almost exactly the same situation at Talk:Golden_Gaming. 84.92.8.221 (talk) 10:45, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- OK, I've taken the liberty of rewriting the article in light of the above discussion. Once again, I have a freely-admitted COI here, and so it may need further editing or work to bring it up to the required standard, but I believe there are now enough sourced statements to satisfy the notability criteria. 84.92.8.221 (talk) 14:40, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mackensen (talk) 02:45, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:CORP Racepacket (talk) 05:14, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- With all due respect, no it doesn't. WP:CORP states in its very first line "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources", which is satisfied here, and later "Notable means "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice." It is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance"... Arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations." It does seem from this discussion that many editors - many American editors, at least, as has been pointed out - just don't think the firm is big or important enough to warrant an article, despite it satisfying the CORP guideline by having been the subject of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. I understand it's only a guideline and not the be all and end all, but in my view the rewritten article clearly doesn't fail any part of WP:CORP. Fosse8 (talk) 15:05, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I do not know how to deal with law firm notability--as for accountants and similar professions,with the exception of a few who get involved in notable cases, it is extremely difficult to find sources that will demonstrate notability. I'd be very happy to find something to supplement the GNG, but what? Largest in an area is a tricky criterion--admittedly Wales is large enough for it to make some sense, but still, how far do we subdivide? The largest law firm in Wales I would accept. The largest family law firm--in an area where Welsh law is identical to English, not quite. And they don;t even claim that--just the largest firm doing that exclusively. First one with a service for same-sex partners (whatever that means--did other firms refuse to deal with them? Were they the first to have a dedicated specialist on their staff? Or just the first to advertise it specifically? ) possibly, just one of the first for this, that means much less. Top rank in a survey--by our usual analogous practices, it would have to be one of the top 3 nationally, and they do not claim that. DGG ( talk ) 06:35, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I appreciate it's tricky. I wrote the article (rather lazily) because I was surprised there wasn't one already, and I thought it might have conflict of interest and advertising issues which I hoped another editor would swiftly fix, but I have to say I was surprised to see this listed for deletion on notability grounds - actually, on further research, I'm surprised at how high the bar seems to be set for articles on UK law firms in general, but I thought that this firm's top ranking in Chambers & Partners and the Legal 500 (which are not "surveys", incidentally, and which don't rank a "top 3" on a UK-wide basis - the firm is ranked as high as it can possibly be in Wales, and has been referred to by a reliable third-party source as "one of the UK's leading family law firms", but there's not going to be anything better than that available to verify importance) and the firm's status in Wales would see it through easily. As my colleague pointed out, this might be a problem of localisation - I note that all delete votes came from editors in America, and all keep votes from editors in Britain. British editors may overstate the importance of being the largest something in Wales (although WP:CORP does specifically distinguish between notability and fame or importance), and American editors may underestimate the differences and significance of Wales within the United Kingdom (is it an "area", a country, a national subdivision tier?) It's hard to overstate the level of national feeling in Wales; furthermore, practising family law in Wales is not in fact identical to practising law in England, because you sometimes have to go to court and conduct proceedings through the medium of Welsh. I understand it's a borderline case, and perhaps difficult to make a good call either way, so I'd ask this (and I genuinely don't know the answer): If it was the first and largest specialist family law firm in, say, Arizona, would it qualify? Fosse8 (talk) 15:05, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

as for Arizona, no, not unless there were significant references for the GNG. Myself, I don't like to use the GNG when we have something more specifically applicable, though perhaps most people here do think it very generally applicable, but even I think it serves as an necessary back-up when we do not have anything more decisve, as here. DGG ( talk ) 18:18, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Google News tells the story by telling no story: it only finds a credit agency's pay per view report, of a kind that can't confer notability. A typical pattern emerges in the article: it spends more space arguing "notability" through media appearances of company personnel or trade awards than it does telling of actual achievements that would confer real notability. There's a reason why the business notability guideline discounts those things specifically. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:09, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Searching without the "LLP" on the end, as suggested above, gives a more realistic picture. Fosse8 (talk) 15:32, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- On further investigation, it seems difficult for any specialist family law practice, of any size anywhere in the world, to generate Google News articles that are about "actual achievements" and not 'discounted' things; looking at some of the Top 100 UK law firms' GN hits, the only differences seem to be "Firm X has advised Y Corporation on their multi-million pound deal with Z Inc" stories, which a family law practice by definition can't have because of confidentiality issues. I know first-hand the firm has been involved in numerous multi-million pound cases and acted for several high-profile UK celebrities, but obviously that's original research and unverifiable - how could it be otherwise? That being the case, the notability comes from being the first and largest such specialist practice in Wales, and is only supported by the firm's achievements and its local and UK reputation, which - not generally being directly reportable - are only reflected in those articles and in its Chambers & Partners and Legal 500 rankings. Non-rhetorical question: what more can be provided? Fosse8 (talk) 15:43, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'll admit that's a problem: law firms, especially those firms that deal with intensely private and personal matters, are going to be at a disadvantage where publicity is involved. Being located in the UK also weighs against them to some extent: solicitor firms are not really the high visibility sector of the legal business, and the courts have more options for keeping their proceedings secret in cases that would have a higher profile in some other countries. I still see mostly press releases and interviews on stories not really about the firm in your search, from what I can tell. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:20, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I find the above discussion a bit perplexing, to be completely honest. I hold both DGG and Smerdis/Ihcoyc in very high regard, as very experienced users who commonly display good sense and make logical arguments, and yet in this case, even though I've linked two independent sources that provide significant coverage, I'm still seeing "delete" opinions.
Wales has the same law as England, but is that germane? They are separate countries, and it's not as if Wales was the third world.
In what way are the sources I have listed inadequate, please?—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 18:35, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I did go through the sources cited in the story. They seemed to be either announcements concerning the hiring of personnel or changes of office structure, all of which read as if they were based entirely on information provided by the firm itself; or they were stories on unrelated subjects where lawyers from the firm were quoted as authorities on British family law. In most other contexts, I wouldn't consider that kind of coverage as making the grade. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 21:53, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Was that also your opinion of the sources I gave in my remark of 11 November, above?—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 22:09, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - (Later) Never mind, I see that it was; those sources are now included in the article. To me, at least, they seem to constitute non-trivial coverage in sources independent of the subject, and thereby demonstrate compliance with the general notability guideline.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 22:13, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes. "WALES’ largest firm of family lawyers –Wendy Hopkins Family Law Practice – has continued to expand with the appointment of Claire Cooper as a qualified solicitor and Sophie Jardine as a new trainee solicitor." "A specialist family law practice, now in its 10th successive year of growth, has announced a new partnership structure. Wendy Hopkins Family Law Practice, Cardiff, was founded with just three solicitors in 1996 as the first law firm in Wales devoted entirely to family law." I believe these were the sources cited in the text when I looked. They still read to me like lightly reworked press releases announcing routine changes in the firm's personnel and structure. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 22:15, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak ~~Delete~~ Keep While I'm no expert on law firms, I've worked at two which are larger (60 attorneys, and 150 attorneys) and better known than this practice (currently I'm at the largest firm of our type in the threes states we serve) , and I've never thought that they were terribly notable. I think the issue is that unless the firm routinely works on high-profile cases which recieve significant media coverage, then they're not notable. More likely they're just famous for one event (Such and such law offices represented so and so in the landmark decision of "I Don't Know v. Who Cares") or their going to only have inherited notability (Blah blah blah and associates reresented Uselsess Celebrity in their recent divorce).Cathardic (talk) 19:55, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- But as has already been pointed out, none of those stories is ever going to be possible with a UK family law firm. There are no reports of the firm's involvement in "high profile cases which receive significant media coverage" (which seems to conflict with your dismissal of 'inherited notability' in "useless celebrity's recent divorce" cases, but anyway) because the firm will never be mentioned in those stories due to client confidentiality and restrictive reporting. I've argued that the firm is notable based on the facts presented in the sources given; the regional media clearly knows about, reports upon, and regularly invites comment from the firm, ergo it is notable per both WP:N and WP:CORP (notable, not famous; your assertion that the firm you work for is "better known than this practice" is highly subjective and seems unlikely to be a worldwide perspective), even if there are no sources saying "This firm just won another case for Millionaire X!"; most UK law firms of any kind, even those in the Top 100 UK Law Firms list, don't have that kind of coverage, but for a family law firm it is exceedingly unlikely. What you're saying, in effect, is that it's actually impossible for a UK family law practice to be considered notable, am I right? Fosse8 (talk) 22:52, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - You definitely seem much more familiar with the notability standards for companies than I am. I was really basing my arguement off of the idea that if the firms I work for don't have wikipedia pages yet, then there's probably a pretty strict requirement for law firms on wikipedia. Then I checked around, and sure enough there are loads of firms with far less notability than this british one. For that reason, I'm going to change my vote to a weak-keep, and pending the results I'm going to create pages for a number of firms I've worked with. And to everyone, where's the wikilove? Sure we Americans are fat, lazy, stupid and have no fashion sense, but that doesn't mean we're just fundamentally opposed to anything from England.Cathardic (talk) 15:03, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Word to the wise... nothing in Wales is "from England"! It's from the UK. (Saying that a Welsh firm is "from England" is like saying a firm based in Florida is "from Texas".)—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 23:16, 22 November 2009 (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.