Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cockle Law Brief Printing Company


 * 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:01, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Cockle Law Brief Printing Company

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Non-notable company lacking GHits and GNEWS to support notability. Cases they were involved in appears to have been in support of printing cases. Appears to fail WP:COMPANY.  ttonyb (talk) 02:00, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- Pcap  ping  11:45, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  -- Pcap  ping  11:45, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.  -- Pcap  ping  11:46, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete as WP:SPAM. The sources are pure WP:PUFF: printing a brief in a notable case does not confer notability. THF (talk) 12:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. A very specialized print shop. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:42, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, printing the briefs in a well-known case is like washing the windows of a well-known building or catering the cast wrap party for a well-known movie.  Glenfarclas   ( talk ) 18:43, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Printing companies can be notable. This article from a reliable source is comprehensive enough on its own to establish notability. You get many ghits (some are duplicates) when you drop the word "company" from your Google News archive search and instead search for "Cockle Law Brief Printing", because the firm's name is sometimes abbreviated to "Cockle Law Brief Printing Co." Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:59, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. The article you found is from the Omaha World Herald and got picked up by the Knight-Ridder wire service.  This business is in Omaha, Nebraska, where every day's a slow news day, and they like it that way just fine, thanks. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 01:13, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. If the article was picked up by a national wire service, this is an argument in favor of notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:30, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. Only one of the sources has anything that might be called substantial coverage.  The guidance from WP:N is that multiple ( two or more) such sources are required.  Eluchil404 (talk) 02:45, 5 March 2010 (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.