Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buckfire and Buckfire P.C.


 * 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. Deryck C. 17:39, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Buckfire and Buckfire P.C.

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable Law Firm. Mateinsixtynine (talk) 20:12, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

KEEP: This user nominated the page for speedy deletion, which was not approved with the explanation, "The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance." This second attempt to delete the page has no significant explanation as to why they decided to delete the page. I argue for the page to be kept based on the following:

This page includes references from significant sources, including CNN, Detroit News, a book published by Oxford University Press, Detroit Free Press, and The Oakland Press--five very reputable sources, showing that the firm and its lawyers have been cited in the news on multiple occasions. The firm is featured in some of the references in great detail, no not all. The Detroit News and Detroit Legal News articles focus solely on the firm, and other articles focus solely on cases run by the law firm. 14 of the 17 references are to third-party references, with the only non third-party references used to establish basic facts, such as the names of lawyers mentioned in newspaper articles. Many of these sources pass the "depth of coverage" requirement, and the independence of the sources do show that "people independent of the subject itself (or its manufacturer, creator, or vendor) have actually considered the company, corporation, product or service notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial, non-routine works that focus upon it" on several occassions. I'm not claiming that this is White and Case here, but the number of references available do give this law firm a place on Wikipedia in the form of a law firm stub. The article is written in neutral, encyclopeadic style, and there are several items of note to mention on the page. Jeremy112233 (talk) 20:42, 29 January 2013 (UTC)


 * My feeling though this is just one of a few million law firms in the country (or the world) that handles accidents and personal injury claims. If there was something special about this firm then I would consider otherwise.  The simple act of the firm existing itself is not enough to warrant inclusion.  Finally, the comment about credible assertion is in reference to speedy deletion standards, which is stricter than AfD.  Mateinsixtynine (talk) 21:10, 29 January 2013 (UTC)


 * You have full right to your opinion, but I believe that the firm passes notability on Wikipedia, and do not believe that this amount of references or quality of references are available for "a few million law firms" :) I spent a lot of time and care to consider whether or not there were enough references here to create a new page, so do politely disagree with your assessment. Jeremy112233 (talk) 21:15, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 02:44, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 02:44, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 02:44, 30 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - I don't know that I'd go as far as "one of a few million" law firms, but I certainly agree with Mateinsixtynine that there's nothing in this article, or in any of the coverage, to show that this is anything other than a run-of-the-mill law firm. cmadler (talk) 14:43, 30 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I would say that the fact it has made news for its distribution of special accident victim materials is different, given notability by the sources that have covered the act. Jeremy112233 (talk) 17:24, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You are welcome to say that, but I certainly don't agree. The only source used that even begins to address notability is the LegalNews.com article about the mobile app, and that by itself, I find entirely inadequate. cmadler (talk) 18:34, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I've read the policy Run-of-the-mill and do not see how the actual criterium described in this policy applies to the law firm in question. None of the sources I've used simply mention the firm about town in the midst of normal business. Jeremy112233 (talk) 00:59, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Most of the sources used don't mention the law firm at all, and several of those that do are sourced via PRWeb. cmadler (talk) 04:17, 31 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete I don't see a claim of notability of the firm. The accomplishments it has are not worthy enough to be considered as a powerful proof of how it may be notable, and for me, they look a bit trivial. Apart from that, I can clearly see how this article is written a bit like an advertisement, using a non-encyclopedic writing fashion (titles like Practice and Lawyers don't sound encyclopedic at all) that would have to be properly reworked to only include material with encyclopedic value, if any. — Ṙ  ΛΧΣ  21  02:19, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jujutacular (talk) 04:34, 6 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - The firm does not seem to be sufficiently notable for inclusion, based on the article's sources that are of inadequate quality. I thought I had found a good source here, until I discovered that it was another PR spawned article. Individual lawyers from the firm have had minor media mentions, but the company does not seem to meet the requirements of WP:ORG. - MrX 04:48, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - agree with most of the assessments thus far. Not seeing a depth of sources to adequately verify notability. Stalwart 111  13:16, 6 February 2013 (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.