Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Communicourt Ltd


 * 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   no consensus. &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 01:08, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Communicourt Ltd

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Delete: This company / organization is not notable.  Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk)  12:09, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment to nominator: how is the company not notable? Which guidelines does it not meet? Dai Pritchard (talk) 12:17, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:36, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:36, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:36, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Notable. Communicourt is said to be one of only two organisations known to provide intermediaries outside the schemes run by the Department of Justice and the Ministry of Justice (Cooper, Highs and Lows: The 4th Intermediary Survey, Kingston University, Updated 13 October 2014, p 4, footnote 8), schemes that have not historically provided intermediaries for defendants: . As to the meaning of "intemediary", see Registered Intermediaries and Non-Registered Intermediary. James500 (talk) 04:49, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 06:43, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Merge to Registered Intermediaries. Seems notable per James500 above, but coverage online is thin, with only two passing mentions in GNews, and one in GScholar. If more coverage can be found, then it can be split out again later to a separate article. Registered Intermediaries and Non-Registered Intermediary should probably also be merged, but that's a separate matter. Dai Pritchard (talk) 10:41, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * There are four results from BAILII, including judgements of the High Court, which are notable under criteria 2 of WP:CASES: . There is, on Communicourt's website, a page which says it is a copy of a judgement delivered by the Recorder of Leeds, in which Communicourt is discussed. I am under the impression that transcripts of judgements can be purchased from the courts, so presumably this one can be verified with an official copy. James500 (talk) 13:58, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * True, but those court documents only mention Communicourt in passing (understandably), and don't consitute significant, in-depth coverage of the company. I really want to be proven wrong about this: they seem notable to me too, so it's surprising that there apparently haven't been any articles about them in the mainstream press, or reasonable coverage in books. Dai Pritchard (talk) 14:50, 9 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. We shouldn't be redirecting non-notable companies to other articles concerning topics the non-notable company focuses in (i.e., if the New York Times were non-notable, we wouldn't redirect it to Newspaper). Pax 10:20, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * No policy or guideline supports that approach and there is no reason whatsoever to do that. In this case independent sources confirm that there only two private organisations providing intermediaries and both of them are correctly discussed in the article on intermediaries on the basis of those sources. If the NYT wasn't notable, we certainly would redirect it to a list of newspapers, because bibliography is within the scope of our project and deleting the redirect would break our citations and be harmful for other reasons examples of which are given here and here. Plus which, neither example meets any of the criteria for deletion. James500 (talk) 13:53, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 01:18, 6 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - the references provided in the article are more than sufficient to establish notability per WP:GNG -Arb. (talk) 14:42, 9 March 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.