Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clifford Law Offices


 * 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 merge to Robert A. Clifford. Davewild (talk) 18:03, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Clifford Law Offices

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The notability is in the cases they dealt with. Every single one of the references are about the cases, not about the firm. (except for the bestlawyers listing in USNews) The article is indistinguishable from what law firms use for advertising.  DGG ( talk ) 04:39, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep what makes a law firm notable other than its cases and lawyers. It cases are notable and it has at least one notable lawyer.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:05, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. News coverage consists of nothing but passing mentions and press releases. I can't find any significant coverage of the law firm itself. Fails GNG. APerson (talk!) 13:33, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - Their international prominence makes them notable. Seems like they're the go-to guys for plane crashes and other things. this profile on Clifford, with some detail and history of the firm, goes to notability.  —Мандичка YO 😜 14:55, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * , if you have a source saying that the law firm is internationally prominent, I'd consider that as showing notability. APerson (talk!) 16:06, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 16 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete and redirect The law office is not separately notable from its main partner Robert A. Clifford WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 11:18, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * "Delete and redirect" is not a valid outcome unless the entire page history meets the criteria of REVDEL. Otherwise WP:R directs that the outcome will just be redirect. James500 (talk) 11:40, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:10, 20 May 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:17, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Move to Robert Clifford as this firm is not independently notable with searches News, Books, Scholar, Highbeam and thefreelibrary only giving these few thefreelibrary results and Books; but it seems Robert Clifford may be notable so this can be moved there. SwisterTwister   talk  00:37, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * merge into Robert A. Clifford - no independent notability for firm. Jytdog (talk) 21:23, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Merge to Robert A. Clifford, not independently notable, despite some WP:ITSNOTABLE claims above. Lankiveil (speak to me) 08:06, 8 June 2015 (UTC).
 * Merge into Robert A. Clifford - no independent notability for firm.Pincrete (talk) 10:18, 8 June 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.