Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clarke Willmott


 * 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. slakr \ talk / 14:44, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Clarke Willmott

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

They are big but not distinctive or notable. This is pure advertising. Philafrenzy (talk) 00:01, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * If a business is unusually large, that is distinctive. James500 (talk) 06:29, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 29 January 2014 (UTC)


 * This firm has received coverage in a number of books previewed in GBooks. James500 (talk) 07:05, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, but the books aren't about them are they? They are mostly legal directories like yellow pages. Every firm has an entry. Philafrenzy (talk) 11:09, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Why do you think every firm gets an entry? Where does it say that? Link please. James500 (talk) 04:09, 8 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete The sources just aren't strong enough to establish notability. Thelawyer.com is a dead link and the legal500 refs are from directories. Admiral Caius (talk) 20:39, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * "The Lawyer" has an overview of the firm here. They say it is the 75th largest by turnover. I can't access the "The Lawyer UK 200 2013" either, but I suspect that is because I am neither subscribed nor logged in. Sources are not required to be free. James500 (talk) 19:28, 8 February 2014 (UTC)


 * This page is a plausible redirect to List of largest United Kingdom-based law firms. It is number 72 on the list. Information about the firm could be tabulated there if need be. James500 (talk) 06:08, 30 January 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(talk) 05:05, 6 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. No Reliable refs no article . Szzuk (talk) 15:57, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * That is manifest nonsense. There are reliable sources, particularly in GBooks (e.g. Chambers and Pritchard's "The Legal 500" ). The issue that has been raised is the depth of coverage (which I am not sure I agree with since the firm is mentioned on 43 pages in one book and 33 in the other and some of the comments don't look like entries in a phonebook). James500 (talk) 03:52, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Redacted. If you address the issue - depth of coverage - I'll redact the delete too, otherwise I'll stay with it. Szzuk (talk) 18:12, 8 February 2014 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong | prattle _ 05:04, 18 February 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.