Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ǼLEX


 * 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 no consensus. Split between those who feel the subject is notable (with sources provided) and those who believe it should be deleted as promotional. While the latter is of course valid, it can be fixed through editing - which I see has already begun during the AfD. ansh 666 21:04, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

ǼLEX

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Blatant promotional article for a non notable company failing WP:NCORP. All references provided in the article are not secondary sources, they are merely the corporation's owned websites. Celestina007 (talk) 00:54, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 01:00, 19 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete Insufficient coverage to pass WP:CORP. Should be probably userfied. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 11:06, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * keep per darreg. We do not expect the same level of coverage from a third world country as from a developed country. Ran an online check and it seems they're apparently notable. Convinced by darreg's argument, I'd now change to keep. Mahveotm (talk) 00:04, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 11:07, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 11:07, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

*Delete non notable organization. There is insufficient independent sources to establish notability. &thinsp;&mdash; Ammarpad (talk) 11:05, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. We have a lot of spammy law firms articles, this is a good example. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 09:26, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep I changed my stance. All sources of Pastorflex are indeed true and this one is even another. –Ammarpad (talk) 02:09, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 12:31, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep the article is about a notable Nigerian Law Firm, which is listed in notable international global law rankings including International Financial Law Review and Chambers and Partners ' Chambers Global Ranking . Also cases and activities of the firm have been well reported in Nigerian national dailies including The Vanguard Newspaper, , Business Day and the Guardian Newspapers  and these are just some of the notable mentions. In this way it passes WP:CORP guidelines, which states Sources used to support a claim of notability include independent, reliable publications in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, television documentaries, websites, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations.Pastorflex (talk) 19:26, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I note that you created the page, and have been heavily involved in editing it: in accordance with Wikipedia's guidelines on managing conflicts of interest, please could you disclose whether you have a personal or professional connection with the subject of this discussion? Thanks, ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 21:12, 20 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I am not professionally or personally linked to the subject, however I have been instrumental in creating articles about Nigerian subjects and I noticed in recent times, media buzz in local Nigerian media about the firm regarding their activities and did some research, I figured that they appear to be notable and encyclopedia worthy and decided to create the article, working with another editor. Pastorflex (talk) 22:19, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Weak Keep: I must confess, I am not very familiar with notability of law firms. But going by references online, they seem to be a top law firm in Nigeria. I even think this is about the first WP article on a Nigerian law firm. If I was to start a WP contest on Nigerian law system, I will definitely consider them. , how aboit you create an article for its founder, Funmi Adekoya in the ongoing Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red/The World Contest? She was vice president of Nigerian bar association and also a vice president and arbitrator with the international criminal court. Definitely deserves a Wp article. Can't provide links because am on a mobile device.Darreg (talk) 08:15, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * You are right on their founder, in writing the article for the firm, I noticed she has been a major player in Nigerian Law and even contested for the NBA presidency at a point, I am currently working on her article and will tag you for inputs once I am done with the draft. Thank you very much!Pastorflex (talk) 09:59, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I will be more than glad to collaborate with you in the creation of Funke Adekoya article. I am basically the only Nigerian editor that have submitted articles for the contest and it will be nice to have another Wikipedian from Nigeria to the same, even if its just one article. But we must be done with the article before the end of the month because that is when the contest will end. Please add your username to the list of interested participant here. Darreg (talk) 18:58, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * thank you, I will Pastorflex (talk) 10:07, 22 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete Per nom, the secondary sources cited by the article in question possibly fail WP:VER, as they are heavily influenced by the subject law firm. Also, the article fails WP:CORPDEPTH as in-depth coverage is lacking.--SamHolt6 (talk) 07:56, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * What about the national awards won? Please be informed that the way Nigerian media covers significant organizations is quite different from how it is done elsewhere. Except in cases of promotional press releases, it doesn't get better than this. This is a firm that is regarded as one of the largest in W/Africa, founded by a top 7 female lawyers in Nigeria. Not deleting this article will only motivate the creator to cover more Nigerian contents. IF this was a law firm in America, there would be thousands of coverage for it. Its just the third world factor that is making it look marginally notable. Darreg (talk) 23:51, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: A quick reminder: When commenting stick to the subject at hand. Cite policies and/or guidelines when possible. And please be brief!

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:56, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep I think the "Partner focus" section could be removed or rewritten entirely - it reads very WP:Promo, but other than that the sources awards and rankings seem notable enough to pass WP:NCORP. Comatmebro  (talk) 04:29, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment I detest any form of WP:BLUDGEON is why I didn't comment earlier but let everyone speak up first. Having evaluated all rationale, I still believe it is pertinent this article is deleted and recreated at a time when it is truly notable. A Strong delete is still best applicable as we are unable to find neither WP:SIGCOV nor reliable WP:INDEPTH coverage of the alleged law firm and as so, verifiability of claims as per WP:V is made impossible and as per WP:CRYSTALBALL we editors work with reliable sources without which we simply cannot effectively do what is required of us, sentiments kept aside we know this article does not conform to the polices and rules binding all us editors irrespective of race, gender and whatnot, that it is a Nigerian article does not make it special or free of same scrunity every other article undergoes. Nigeria today is greatly improved as pertains to information technology, so the argument that reliable or significant coverage is not readily available in the article due to the fact that the law firm is in Nigeria holds no water we have no policy that gives any particular country special rights over others let us do the right thing here.Celestina007 (talk) 19:37, 29 November 2017
 * After you waited for all people to speak so as to detect the tilt of conclusion you still missed the shot with vague comment and conjectures. You said no reliable coverage about it, that's because you didn't do WP:BEFORE before nomintaing and still you didn't search to find ones now. See, ,  and look inside the article. You weirdly said verifiability of claims is impossible?! Please go and tag any unsourced claim with citation needed if citation is not given you can remove the statement. You also vaguely write "as per WP:CRYSTALBALL without explaining how it applies. WP:CYRSTAL is used for yet to -occur event or anything yet-to-be created. For instance writing about FIFA World cup 2026 is WP:CRYSTAL because it is a future event so that large bulk of the article will contain  speculation and thought of writers or journalist. But WP:CRYSTAL cannot apply to a firm that exists for as nearly as long as Wikipedia itself. You should re- read what guidline or policy say before qouting it out of oc context just because you crammed its shortcut. –Ammarpad (talk) 05:21, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * When i mentioned WP:CRYSTALBALL, i was refering to the unavalaibility of reliable references to substantiate certain blatant promotional peacock statements made in the article and not the existence of the law firm itself. For you to say i cram policies and/or guidelines is to say i'm a fraud & i find this quite offensive and a direct transgression of WP:NPA you should know that. let us argue polices out without getting emotional, can you please make constructive arguements without the attacks? you are more experienced than i am here so i should not be reminding you of basic things like this. Celestina007 (talk) 20:06, 11 December 2017
 * If there is "certain blatant promotional peacock statements made in the article" as you claimed, the right thing is to either WP:FIXIT or tag it with, but not deletion. Deletion is only used as a last resort for completely unsalvageable content. Also, you cannot change the meaning of WP:CRYSTALBALL by saying that you mean something, if you want say something like 'unsourced content' you can just say it, but don't use wrong guideline and justify with that. Then, I am very mindful of my words here and averse to uncivil remarks. I didn't know how cramming shortcut is personal attack, but nonetheless, I am sorry if you assume it is. Then finally; not only you, anybody who will come to AfD and say "they waited for all people to comment before they make their own, this needs no debate, they want see the tilt of closure and pile on. –Ammarpad (talk) 07:55, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Baby miss fortune 03:38, 5 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep I think has more than demonstrated notability here. There are plenty of independent refs.Egaoblai (talk) 07:05, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Please fix your comment it shows all in bold. –Ammarpad (talk) 07:27, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * WhoopsEgaoblai (talk) 07:47, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete., possibly speedy delete G11. Entirely promotional. This is an advertisement for the company: list of partners, list of awards, boxed highly promotional quotation, onlyconceivable content for an encyclopedia is a list of their yearly lectures, which thearticle itself says are intended to promote the firm. Notability is irrelevant in comparison with NOT PROMOTIONAL  DGG ( talk ) 22:12, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 06:59, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:SPIP as entirely promotional - so much so that I've removed two sections listing the partners and their self-published lectures. Wikipedia is not a substitute for a corporate website or promotional brochure. The references also fail the criteria for establishing notability as they are not intellectually independent and are either self-published or published by an affiliated source, fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. -- HighKing ++ 13:33, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  J  947  (c · m)  04:54, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  J  947  (c · m)  04:54, 15 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete NOTPROMO is also a valid reason to delete - and yeah it's pretty promotional. A nice quote box praising it like it's the company website. Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:02, 15 December 2017 (UTC)


 * 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.