Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Epstein Becker & Green


 * 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 Userfy to User:Bearian/Epstein Becker & Green. He already asked for it, so deleting and making him go through WP:REFUND seems like a WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY fail. RL0919 (talk) 17:36, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Epstein Becker & Green

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The information on largest is not in the available portion of any of the sources; being in the list in ref 1 is meaningless because the list consists of all 58 listed firms. I removed a totally promotional ref, and there are not sufficient sources to support the article. I've begun checking all articles I see that say "one of the largest"  DGG ( talk ) 19:32, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 21:22, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 21:22, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 21:22, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Userfy for want of reliable sources currently in the article, and a lot of work to do on it. A search of Google newspapers reveals nothing, and of books reveals scant coverage in passing. If it really were so big, I'd see more news about that. A deeper search pf the American Bar Association does find more sources, but we'd have to spend a lot of time combing through those links. Closing admin, I give you permission to userfy it to my user space. Bearian (talk) 17:54, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:52, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Soft delete so WP:REFUND and userification can apply upon request. Nom's rationale is sound and I see no need to userify currently. --Doug Mehus T · C  03:56, 10 January 2020 (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.