Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Babener & 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. Michig (talk) 10:06, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Babener & Associates

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The article is about a law firm, but three quarters of it is a detailed CV for the main attorney and founder, and there is no actual claim of notability for the firm. I do not believe that the sources show sufficient notability for the lawyer either, but it is just possible that he might be notable enough for an article about him. In addition, this article reads like a bit of a puff piece. bonadea contributions talk 08:20, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 10:31, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 10:31, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 10:31, 20 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - A search for sources comes up with some, but they are trivial mentions. I even checked the Bar's site to see if the firm had been covered in the Bulletin, but nothing in the online archives I could find. On a side note, I'm an attorney in the Portland area and have never heard of this firm. Aboutmovies (talk) 15:24, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. [I thought for a minute I had a copyvio - it was just them saying they were on Wikipedia].  But I'm not turning anything notable up other than random go-to for quotes on MLM. Neonchameleon (talk) 20:25, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete promotional/vanity article; also, vis a vis User:Neonchameleon's observation of the 'WE'RE NOW ON WIKIPEDIA' announcement on Babener & Associates' blog, this article probably further merits deletion for violating WP:CLUELESS DocumentError (talk) 07:47, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
 * At the moment WP:CLUELESS is redlinked. Could you please identify the page to which you are referring. James500 (talk) 18:37, 25 December 2013 (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.