Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CaseyGerry


 * 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. Stifle (talk) 13:33, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

CaseyGerry

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:NCORP, in that the firm itself has not been the subject of coverage in reliable, independent, secondary sources. A couple of the cases might be notable, but the firm itself isn't. It's also written like an advertisement. ~  ONUnicorn (Talk problem solving 20:51, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:45, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:45, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:45, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I have made numerous updates to the page/article. Could you please take a look again to see if I've corrected these issues? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moore2com (talk • contribs) 23:48, 27 January 2015 (UTC) — Moore2com (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * By removing what few third-party references the article had, your recent edits have made the problem worse. Notability needs non-trivial coverage by reliable media independent of the subject. I'll hold off voting keep or delete until I search for reliable source coverage. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 28 January 2015 (UTC)


 * , I agree with, your edits have made it worse. If the firm were notable for anything, it would be for the high-profile cases it has handled. Your recent changes have eliminated the mentions of the cases.  However, it's not enough for the firm to have handled high profile cases; the firm itself has to be notable; it has to be "the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources." See WP:NCORP. Take a look at Cracker Barrel, or BAE Systems for examples of what an article about a business or corporation should look like.  Also Ace Books, note how the article incorporates the history of the company, shows how the company was influential in the development of science fiction as a genre, and a list of the most influential books the company has published (akin to a list of important cases won by a firm). Note that it has 38 references to independent sources, most of which discuss the company and its influence in the publishing world. Now, obviously not all articles are going to be of featured article quality right from the start.  I don't think we currently have any articles about law firms that are WP:FA or even Good Article quality.  However, articles about law firms do have to establish that they are notable.  See for example, Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft, they have 8 sources, and some of them are from the firm itself (which is fine), but the article also cites to articles about the firm in Wall Street Journal and Above the Law, among others. The U.S. News Best Law Firm ranking comes close, although much of the information for those rankings comes from firms themselves, and to some extent they are a popularity contest.  Likewise, Super Lawyers inclusion has not been considered indicative of notability for lawyer/lawfirm articles on Wikipedia in the past.  See for example, Articles for deletion/Scheiner Law Group.  Hopefully that helps you understand what we're looking for. ~  ONUnicorn (Talk problem solving 16:22, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment For some reason, I heavily revised this article, mostly to make it easier to see what references it is relying on. I also did some searching for additional sources.  I still don't think it meets WP:NCORP.  Here are the sources it currently has:
 * Preparation Pays, an article in the Los Angeles Daily Journal. The Daily Journal is a publication specializing in legal news.  They publish legal notices and profiles of lawyers and law firms.  The article is heavily promotional and reads like a press release.  I believe it fails WP:ORGIND because it appears to be, "advertising and marketing materials by, about, or on behalf of the organization."
 * U.S. News & World Report Law Firm Rankings. This fails WP:CORPDEPTH, as it is merely inclusion in a list of similar organizations. Also, if you read their profile on the firm, it uses words like "our" indicating it was generated from within.
 * State Bar of California List of Past Presidents. This is not significant coverage of the firm, merely support for the ascertation that the firm's founder was a president of that organization.
 * Martindale profile. This also fails WP:CORPDEPTH as it is merely inclusion in a list of similar organizations.
 * Super Lawyers. Again, WP:CORPDEPTH.  See footnote"Inclusion in 'best of', 'top 100', and similar lists does not count towards notability at all, unless the list itself is notable, such as the Fortune 500 and the Michelin Guide. Inclusion in a notable list counts like any other reliable source, but it does not exempt the article from the normal value of providing evidence that independent sources discuss the subject."
 * All remaining sources (with one exception) again, are merely lists or directories of law firms or lawyers who meet certain characteristics.
 * Bankers Hill firm to serve on litigation committee against NFL. This is the only source that I consider beginning to provide a foundation for notability. It's an article in the local paper about the firm's work on the NFL litigation.

~  ONUnicorn (Talk problem solving 20:05, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:CORP. I could not find any significant coverage about this law firm from independent reliable sources. There are plenty of mentions - such as when they were one of several law firms in a high-profile case, or when one of their partners was appointed to a civic board - but WP:CORP requires significant coverage and I'm not seeing any. (If kept, the name should be changed to Casey Gerry.) --MelanieN (talk) 11:30, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you all for your help. I'm trying to figure this all out as I go. I can't even remember how I replied to you in the first place...ack. Will keep working on page. Please don't delete. There's hope right?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moore2com (talk • contribs) 20:31, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, User:Moore2com, this discussion will stay open for a week before any action is taken. But I'm sorry to say, at this point there probably is not hope. The problem is not with the way you have written the article. The problem is that the law firm doesn't meet Wikipedia's inclusion guidelines, as spelled out at WP:CORP. That requires that the company or firm must have received significant coverage from independent reliable sources. That means significant coverage (not passing mentions) about the firm itself (not its members) from independent reliable sources (not press releases, company pages, etc.). If that coverage does not exist - and from a search I don't think it does - then no amount of editing or revising is going to save the article. Sorry to be so blunt, I know this is frustrating after you have worked so hard on the article. But Wikipedia is an international encyclopedia and it has to have standards for inclusion. It is really hard for any law firm to meet those standards, since it's very rare for newspapers or magazines or other Reliable Sources to write about the law firm. In a way that's inherent in the nature of a law practice; the attorneys usually keep a low profile, while it's the case or the client that gets the coverage. --MelanieN (talk) 21:08, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I really do appreciate all the help you've give me MelanieN and helping explain everything (and rewriting if that was you!). Does coverage on verdicts count as coverage of the law firm? I find this entire process fascinating. It's my first foray in to the wiki world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moore2com (talk • contribs) 22:13, 29 January 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.