Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barasch McGarry Salzman & Penson (2nd nomination)


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 20:37, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Barasch McGarry Salzman & Penson
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Still nothing suggestive of convincing independent notability as this is only a 1-office NY law firm with only 8 employees, there's by far nothing at all convincing. Frankly I consider this G11 material and I would've commented at the 1st AfD bottom if it wasn't for this. Notifying. SwisterTwister  talk  19:14, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:56, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:56, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:56, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete as first nominator, per the rationale at the first AfD page. I do not think WP:G11 applies, but the sources, though numerous, are quite thin and fail under routine coverage / passing mention. Tigraan Click here to contact me 07:14, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:36, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. no reasonto think notable.  DGG ( talk ) 04:36, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete: A firm going about its business; notability is not inherited from events which have given rise to their workload. Nothing indicates encyclopaedic notability. AllyD (talk) 07:28, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete -- an unremarkable law firm. Sourcing insufficient to meet CORPDEPTH and GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:19, 7 August 2016 (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.