Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Big Six law firms


 * 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 per clear consensus. Non-admin closure despite one dissenter (WP:IAR). If you wish to review this decision, please leave me a message. I believe the suggestion to rename to Big Six Australian law firms is a good idea, to be discussed on the talk page. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 05:45, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Big Six law firms

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Neologism? This term has just 32 Ghits and not all of them refer to what the article is talking about. Damiens .rf 20:48, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  -- Canley (talk) 23:44, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - it's a well established term in the Australian legal profession. I trust Australian lawyers and law students will confirm that view. For googling purposes, hopefully this search is a little more illuminative. About 4590 hits and most of them talking about the subject of the article. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 03:46, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep but clean up, sources here are a good starting point. I think it's reasonably akin to what were the Big 4/5 accounting firms worldwide and able to be sourced and explained better TRAVELLINGCARI My storyTell me yours 05:21, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep well known-term in Australian business circles and justified entry. Murtoa (talk) 07:33, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Per Palace. Five Years 11:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete* Highly subjective list. Will and has changed over the years. If it is to be kept the title needs to reflect Australian parochial nature (and please tidy up text!)Lentisco (talk) 02:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Why do you say it's highly "subjective"? As far as I know there is no different version of this list, and the list is well recognised in Australia - as per posts above. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 04:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep but rename to Big Six Australian law firms. A better Google search yields better results which can verify the article, and it's widely used in the media and in the legal community. I see no evidence that the list is unstable or subjective, and anyway, if the list changes, then the article can be updated. The Big Four (auditing firms) has changed in both number and membership several times, but that's still an appropriate article and has been updated to reflect the changes. --Canley (talk) 00:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - but some qualification of when the temperature was taken - there would need to be a historical perspective as to whether there were previous orders or members - otherwise it is a worthless article, and reflects opinion but not as severe as Lentisco's perspective - but from a snapshot in time - they might be that order and size now - but some context please - historical if possible SatuSuro 09:17, 7 May 2008 (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.