Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Durie Tangri 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.  A  Train ''talk 14:35, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Durie Tangri LLP

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable law firm written like an advertisement. All the coverage seems to be about its founder, with none of the coverage existing going in-depth about the firm. Notability is not inherited, and this firm fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:21, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.   CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   23:56, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.   CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   23:56, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:52, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:52, 2 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I disagree that "all the coverage" is "about the founder." Most of the cited references report on the firm in general--for instance, https://www.law360.com/articles/610238/ip-group-of-the-year-durie-tangri and https://www.law360.com/articles/703653/6-ip-boutiques-punching-above-their-weight. Also, I would be glad to revise the language if you have suggestions on how to make it less "like an advertisement." Morninj (talk) 04:04, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The award that you link to doesn't appear to be enough to confer notability, and the sources combined don't seem to give the level of coverage that we would want under WP:NORG. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:35, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete -- promo page on an unremarkable law firm. "Boutique" strongly suggests "non-notable", while the content can be just as effectively housed on the firm's web site. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:52, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:53, 6 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. I might have considered them notable had they been lead counsel on the Google case, but they weren't. They didn;t appear in court, but were one of the firms that helped write the brief. . Otherwise this is just an advertisement.  DGG ( talk ) 08:10, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * They were lead counsel in the district court. (see p. 29), . The district court's decision was later affirmed on appeal by the Second Circuit (in the opinion you link to). Morninj (talk) 18:18, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete as non-notable. The only apparent dissent is a lawyer; could they be in the firm as well? Ifnord (talk) 18:27, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete as not passing WP:GNG. The advertising aspect of the article should also be noted.  Onel 5969  TT me 11:57, 11 May 2017 (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.