Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barnea & Co.


 * 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 keep. (non-admin closure)  Lourdes  02:10, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Barnea & Co.

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable law firm that fails WP:N by both not having in depth coverage in reliable sources as understood by WP:CORPDEPTH and by being excluded by WP:NOTSPAM as existing to serve the purpose of promoting the law firm with promotional language. Coverage is limited to passing mentions in articles about clients the firm has had, not about the firm itself. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:42, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi TonyBallioni This is a translation of Japanese version. Wisebar1323 (talk) 11:20, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 00:42, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 00:42, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 00:42, 24 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. Very major Israeli lawfirm. Article could use some cleanup of puffery. Lots and lots of coverage in Hebrew, including pieces on the firm itself.Icewhiz (talk) 04:02, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. Plenty of reliable sources and evidence that this law firm - with 100 employees - is notable.--Geewhiz (talk) 06:27, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment its certainly possible that I missed foreign-language sources, but could some be provided for us to analyze? If they do exist, I'm more than happy to withdraw the nomination because I feel very strongly that systemic bias is wrong, and linguistic bias is one part of this. The soures that are currently in the article are about their clients (from what I can tell on Google Translate) or are not RS. I also don't consider having 100+ employees necessarily indicative of notability. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:08, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * There are approx. 220+ Google-news hits in Hebrew (576 raw count - 22 pages of results) - . Many of these are regarding cases they are involved in, but there are some more in-depth pieces on the firm (mainly when partners leave/join/restructure etc.).Icewhiz (talk) 14:20, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I would say that in the case of a law firm, the clientele does mean something. In this field, I would say having notable clients and handling high profile cases is certainly evidence of a law firm's standing (and hence notability). And I am fairly certain that a law firm with a staff of 100 is not at all run-of-the-mill, at least not in Israel.--Geewhiz (talk) 15:08, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, from what I can make out from the Google News and translate, I don't see anything that would lead me to think it should be kept if it were a US based firm. Do you have any specific articles that you could reference? Nothing in the article currently seems to meet the GNG for a firm from any country. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:56, 25 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep as per usual with major, sourced U.S. and Brit law firms brought to AFD, can't see why Israel should be different.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:42, 25 July 2017 (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.