Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AM 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. Courcelles (talk) 23:12, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

AM Law Firm

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I do not find that the references are sufficient for this firm to pass WP:CORP. Additionally, the article feels as if it is the firm's web site and is a brochure, not an article about them. Fiddle  Faddle  12:46, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 14:05, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:52, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:52, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:00, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I dont think that the article does not meet the terms of WP:CORP . It has enough references and in my opinion this firm is notable as it has a strong coverage as in Local media so in international media.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maria step (talk • contribs) 08:21, 10 September 2015 (UTC)  — Maria step (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment appears to have a WP:COI, potentially as a senior staff member of the organisation.  Fiddle   Faddle  09:08, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:00, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * This is a useful article. I found interesting cases here like burberry against jazzve. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eduard Melikyan (talk • contribs) 19:02, 11 September 2015‎ — Eduard Melikyan (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Speedy delete as spam. We are not a web host for new law firms. In particular, this stub fails every one of my standards for notability of attorneys and law firms.  Bearian (talk) 19:23, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete, appears to be a bit too promotional in tone and quality. If it's indeed the coverage of reliable secondary sources independent of the subject itself, then could be target for quality improvement. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 16:34, 18 September 2015 (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.