Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aaron Sachs & Associates


 * 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. NW ( Talk ) 19:35, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Aaron Sachs & Associates
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Non notable small firm of local trial lawyers. Only Google New Archive search is an expired item, apparently a routine announcement of the firm's founding. Nothing in their website gives any indication of possible notability. Speedy was declined.  DGG ( talk ) 19:15, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - nothing in the article suggests notability; searches find only listing-type mentions. JohnCD (talk) 19:21, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no requirement in Wikipedia policy that coverage be "non-routine"--possibly to avoid endless bickering about how to apply such a subjective criterion. The problem with the Google news item DGG refers to is not that it's "routine" but that it is, apparently, a press release. 160.39.213.97 (talk) 19:50, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * yes, that was the meaning of "routine announcement" I intended.  DGG ( talk ) 20:15, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:21, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification, and sorry for my misunderstanding. 160.39.213.97 (talk) 20:41, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * I don't think I have ever seen DGG nominate something for deletion before; this firm doesn't appear to meet WP:CORP so I will go for delete. Stifle (talk) 10:26, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, fails WP:ORG. Ironholds (talk) 18:25, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - non-notable law firm; spammish article. I've never heard of them, I can't find any news items at all about them by standard searches, and a quick review of Ghits reveals lots of blogs, spam, and similar self-edited sources.  If DGG nominates it for deletion, it should be. Bearian (talk) 19:53, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, no claim of or to notability. Abductive  (reasoning) 05:23, 24 September 2009 (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.