Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arendt & Medernach


 * 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.  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 15:42, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Arendt & Medernach

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Still no independent sources at all, after being tagged for two years. No evidence of notability. Searches have produced mainly the firm's own site, linkedin, Wikipedia, and numerous business directories and listing sites. I see no evidence of coverage by reliable third party sources. (Note: PROD was contested by an editor using the company's own IP, without giving any reason.) JamesBWatson (talk) 14:32, 20 July 2011 (UTC) JamesBWatson (talk) 14:32, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 02:56, 21 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - It's elementary, my dear Watson. I didn't find any sources on Google or Yahoo, suggestins there was never any news coverage. SwisterTwister   talk  03:56, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Arendt & Medernach Dear Sirs, our intention is to provide right and updated information on our firm. This is why we provided an updated text without any advertising or promotion aspect, as you required. And we have to apologize that we did not get this aspect in mind with our first update. If this information (and we wrote it as factual as possible) has to be provided by a third party, we are afraid, it is not depending on us. As we do not see any interest to publish or keep published wrong or non-updated information on our firm, of course we are in favor of deleting this page. Based on this, we rely on your professionalism and mastery of the subject to take appropriate action. Of course we would be very pleased to further discuss the subject with you. Best regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.154.211.73 (talk) 07:50, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete, promotional piece only, of firm with no indication of notability. Could be have been speedily deleted under WP:A7; perhaps also WP:G11. TJRC (talk) 00:55, 26 July 2011 (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.