Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blakely Sokoloff Taylor & Zafman


 * 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. (soft) slakr  \ talk / 02:08, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Blakely Sokoloff Taylor &
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

References provided are trivial mentions and fail to provide significant coverage of the subject, in spite of the assertion of notability required to avoid speedy deletion.

That was my rationale for my original PROD. The editor who removed the PROD tag stated on the talk page that the firm is well known in the IP law community, but also admits to "having trouble finding additional sources to support notability... [due to being] mentioned so much in directory listings, bylines in article written by (but not about) its attorneys, and on patents, that I believe it's masking the sources that are about the firm. I also have to admit that, even though it's notable within the IP law community, it may not be notable in the general sense that Wikipedia requires.... I think that this is an article deletion that's not well-handled with PROD, and that it should get an airing on WP:AFD."

I agree, so I'm bringing it here. ~Amatulić (talk) 12:31, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 16 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails WP:CORP. I could find no independent coverage. There is a Bloomberg listing but it contains no information except the name of one of the partners (probably the person who listed it there). From the article's claims they could be an important law firm, but without independent coverage we can't prove it.  --MelanieN (talk) 23:26, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 07:53, 23 June 2014 (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.