Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dewey Pegno & Kramarsky LLP


 * 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. Davewild (talk) 06:44, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Dewey Pegno & Kramarsky LLP

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

It seems like a lot of these articles are not RS. Lots of puffery here, not sure a law firm of 16 people should be here, especially with the lack of adequate sourcing. Looks like this was PRODed before, so best to nominate to get a better discussion. Jeremy112233 ( Lettuce-jibber-jabber? ) 00:21, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * PROD happened here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dewey_Pegno_and_Kramarsky_LLP&action=edit&redlink=1


 * Delete. Based on what I've found so far, I don't think this small firm has the significant coverage, or rises to the significance, we generally expect for law firms to get their own articles here. --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:52, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. As I discussed in my Signpost Op-Ed, this type of an article is a good example of Yellow-Pages like company spam. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 03:59, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete: "Litigation boutique" is a somewhat recent term of art, and it almost guarantees a lack of notability, as the point to such firms is that they try to stay somewhat small. They aim for high talent, but they're not big on getting a profile in independent press. Lacks notability from independent coverage, but that's nearly guaranteed. That doesn't mean it's not high profile in the world of NYC litigators, but it does mean it's not encyclopedic. Hithladaeus (talk) 12:22, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I think the firm is notable because it has an interesting practice, low growth to focus on profile cases like the Empire State Building IPO and Credit Suisse trade secrets. The cases are discussed widely online and in print publications. I propose to write about the individual notable cases with references to this law firm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:ARTanascio|ARTanascio (talk)ARTanascio]] (talk • contribs) 15:24, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 2 June 2015 (UTC)


 * More inclined to delete as there aren't any significant and notable sources with searches here, here, here and here; nothing outstanding. SwisterTwister   talk  20:39, 4 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.