Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Akampurira & Partners (Uganda)


 * 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. j⚛e deckertalk 18:07, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Akampurira & Partners (Uganda)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Law firm with no indications of any particular notability. All references are stories about clients the firm has represented, that mention the firm in passing, but that do not provide any in-depth coverage of the firm. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:01, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:58, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:59, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:59, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Comment. This article has some history. It was speedily deleted by me when it was named Akampurira & Partners. The first article and this article were created by a combination of sock and meat puppets. See Sockpuppet investigations/Wenger256.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:52, 22 May 2014 (UTC) 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e deckertalk 00:53, 27 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete: A small firm demonstrably going about its business, but lacking evidence of encyclopaedic notability. AllyD (talk) 05:31, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete for failing WP:CORP. Fails to get significant coverage by reliable sources. References are passing mentions and directory entries. Independent search for RS coverage comes up empty. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. The claim to notability seems to be that they had a couple clients that pass GNG; and in a few cases, litigated against organizations that pass GNG.  But that doesn't make the firm notable.  The article itself does not make any claims about coverage of the firm, just about the clients (mostly Sharma). TJRC (talk) 20:17, 28 May 2014 (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.