Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bonelli Erede Pappalardo


 * 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. Michig (talk) 07:21, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Bonelli Erede Pappalardo

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I have prodded it under the following concern: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing General notability guideline and the more detailed Notability (companies) requirement". It was deprodded by User:Samuel J. Howard under the following rationale: "here are multiple reliable independent non-trivial sources in the legal press and in the Italian media". Well, the legal press mentions refer to one dedicated article in The Lawyer (, closed access so I cannot verify even from my university). There's an unformatted ref to Il Sole 24 Ore, through I don't speak Italian so I cannot judge its quality. Not sure what other reliable sources are there; half are from beplex.com - company's own website, and other half are annotated as "press room", i.e. promotional self-published press releases. I am not sure if - at best - two dedicated stories make this pass WP:CORPDEPTH, but I am open to further discussion (and preferably, more RS being presented). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:51, 26 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. The Wall Street Journal has called Bonelli Erede Pappalardo a "leading Italian law firm".. An article in la Repubblica, a major Italian newspaper, calls the firm "probably the biggest law firm in Italy". The article in The Lawyer cited in the article is free with registration and confirms 100 Million Euros in revenue. There are other articles in The Lawyer . Corriere della Sera, one of Italy's oldest newspapers, covers the firm  and runs an article about the firm from Dow Jones Newswires.
 * Let me cite another article from ALM Media's American Lawyer Daily that calls the firm "elite", "top-tier", "leading" and a "powerhouse".--Samuel J. Howard (talk) 14:53, 26 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I'd ask to be careful in his deletion of articles about companies.  This and his deletion request for Mint.com do not show adherence to WP:BEFORE part D, which require that one look for additional sources before nominating an article for deletion. He extensively analyzes the sources cited in articles, but that is not sufficient. --Samuel J. Howard (talk) 14:37, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 01:31, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:TNT. There's almost no useful content in the article, but there is a lot of WP:ADMASQy "...Bonelli enhanced its profitability wth several high profile lateral hires..." style writing. Pax 10:43, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep per sources listed above by Samuel J. Howard, clearly and obviously notable topic. WP:TNT applies for articles which have unsurmountable problems, eg. copyright violations or no meaningful content, not just for minor MOS issues. WP:UGLY is never a valid reason for deleting an article about a notable subject, let alone the current state of the article isn't that bad. Cavarrone 13:06, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: That article was so ugly that, after I took the chainsaw to it, there was only one sentence left. Of the two sources that remained after spam-removal, one Google considered untranslatable, so I pitched it. That leaves an allegedly notable subject in need of one more RS. (Presumably you or Howard or whomever will now add it, we'll close this on a keep or non-con, forget about it, and a year from now all the shaved-off crud will slowly creep back in.) Pax 07:25, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Most of the removed material restored, sourced material is not supposed to be removed with vague and POV edit summaries such as "chainsawing", nor this interisting article by Il Sole 24 Ore (which basically backs most of the informations included in the article) could be considered "spam" or something "Google considered untranslatable" (???). Chainsaws could be dangerous, they need to be used with more caution. Furthermore, (again) WP:UGLY is never a valid reason for deletion, this is a non-argument. And "allegedly notable subject in need of one more RS" is a blatant nonsense, just read the sources listed above by Samuel J. Howard, then please read WP:NRVE  The absence of citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that the subject is not notable, and notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate citation. --Cavarrone  08:22, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Going by what I see in the article as of your last edit six of its nine sources are beplex.com WP:Primary bio puffery of the principles (two of whom are left as "red links"), and do not concern the firm itself. Of the two sources remaining, one is the untranslatable Italian trade paper...but since we can't read it, we cannot be certain that the claims in the table match it (i.e., aren't bullshit). The last source, regarding news of the merger, arguably represents a WP:Routine business announcement - such are useful as backup sources, but they shouldn't carry the entire weight of an article. Basically, this page remains badly sourced with zero useful mainstream RS.


 * Of Samuel J. Howard's found sources (listed above), the first two (WSJ and Repubblica) are not about the subject. Next is The Lawyer announcing it "smashing the $100 million Euro revenue ceiling" in 2006...which seems impressive until you realize that even its current E130M is nowhere remotely close to getting in the top 100 law firms by revenue (because the world is smothered in law firms, and a quick glance at a few Wikipedia articles of those at the bottom of the list tells me there's a massive iceberg of spam lurking in the deep dark where AfDs fear to venture). The other "coverage" provided consists of one-paragraph boilerplate.


 * If we're to keep this, there should be something out there concerning this allegedly "leading" firm that is more than passing mentions, head honcho bald-pate-polishing and "NEWS FLASH" regurgitated press-releases (lookin' at you, Corriere Della Sera). Pax 11:40, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:PSTS (primary sources could be used in an article), WP:SIGCOV (significant coverage does not need to be the main topic of the source material), WP:SOURCEACCESS (sources are not required to be online or accessible for free, I myself generally use offline sources - books I own - for biographies of authors, actors, and directors). If you are looking for an interisting article about the firm, as I pointed above, just read the Il Sole 24 Ore article which is already included in the article (Google Translate works fine for me, if it does not work for you just use another traslation program). Cavarrone  21:52, 9 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep per Samuel J Howard and Cavarrone. The biggest law firm in Italy is notable. I have also heard it said that, as a rule of thumb, companies around the hundred million dollar mark typically receive significant coverage (NRVE). James500 (talk) 05:34, 12 March 2015 (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.