Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frank B. Dehn & Co.


 * 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, default to keep. Neil  ム  11:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Frank B. Dehn &amp; Co.

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable specialized law firm. It has not been the subject of coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. "Ranked in the top tier of the annual Legal 500 list of UK patent and trade mark firms" does not make a specialized law firm notable. Edcolins 12:15, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Is the non-notability simply due to the unverified citation? Or does being "specialized" somehow disqualify it? In the former case, the link did not work due to the need for a session cookie when accessing the Legal 500 website; the citation has now been amended accordingly. A further point of note is the firm's being the second-largest patent firm in the UK. This fact is now included and referenced in the article. Orie0505 15:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment. Thanks for your message. I maintain my opinion that the topic of the article does not satisfy the notability guidelines for organizations and companies. "A company (...) is notable if it has been the subject of coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject." Being listed on a publication of the Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys (CIPA) or on Legal 500 does not establish notability. Legal 500 is basically a business directory while CIPA is the professional organization of UK patent attorneys (which registers all UK patent attorney firms I suppose). Also, the number of attorneys is not a sufficient criterion to establish notability. A reliable, independent source offering a substantial depth of (independent) coverage would be necessary to establish notability. --Edcolins 19:30, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,


 *  Weak delete  (changed opinion; see below) per Edcolins without prejudice. It certainly is well-publicized, with 34,000+ google hits. But fame is distinct from notability, and after browsing for some time I've failed to find anything to substantiate notability. The page as it is does not in my opinion pass muster. I'm assuming there must be something; the company was founded in 1920 and claims to have represented Apple. One would presume it would generate some press coverage. I wish I could find it. But I can't, and verifiability states that "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." I hope I have the opportunity to change my opinion. :) --Moonriddengirl 13:37, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment. Thanks to Edcolins and Moonriddengirl for your responses.  The firm has, of course, since 1920 represented many notable clients in many notable patent and trade mark applications and appeals.  It is, however, in the nature of the industry that firms of attorneys and their clients often desire (and achieve) very little press attention.  If one has access to patent and trade mark databases, published law reports, etc. there are many mentions of the firm and its attorneys.  But you are right that there seems to be very little in the popular press.  I have added details one one very notable client in the field of software patents (see the articles on the High Court judgement). Orie0505 17:49, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak keep The additions to the page since its nomination, and especially today (its part in a precedent setting court case and its breaking ground in Germany), seem to me to satisfy notability. Note that I don't think this is indisputable, which is why my support of keeping the article is not strong. It would be nice to see more secondary sources; the court case is supported by a primary source, which is not sufficient as consideration for notability. However, I think there's enough for the article to survive, and I hope that further secondary sources may be forthcoming. --Moonriddengirl 18:13, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm, Moonriddengirl, I don't quite follow your new opinion (and you don't seem to be completely convinced yourself..). The question is not whether the legal case is notable, the question is whether the law firm is notable per se (the client "Neal Macrossan" does not seem notable to me by the way - and certainly not "very notable"). A notable case does not necessarily make the lawyer who handled the case notable, unless the lawyer's contribution to the case is acknowledged by reliable, secondary sources as being decisive to the case's notability. Similarly if the client had been notable, this would not even necessarily mean that the lawyer is also notable. Regarding the alleged "breaking ground in Germany", is there any other source mentioning this "first" as a notable achievement? A single secondary source does not seem enough to me, and I doubt this is actually an outstanding achievement (this is nice for clients sure, but it seems to me the "breaking ground" is more of an advertisement-like statement - it is not even clear who is the author of this article on www.managingip.com). The European Union has rules to allow lawyers to work in other countries if admitted to plead in one EU member state. Sorry I still think the article does not satisfy the notability guidelines and should be deleted. --Edcolins 21:45, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. True, but I wasn't all that strongly convinced it was non-notable, either. That's what that "weak" business is all about. :) I wouldn't argue its notability to my grave--that's why I noted that its not indisputable...and also that additional secondary sources are necessary. However,I believe that a law firm becomes notable through its representation of clients (notability acquired per working on notable cases) and that any company that is the first to be permitted full privileges to operate in another nation seems to have a fair bid for notability. Managing Intellectual Property seems to be an industry publication and gives every indication of satisfying requirements as a reliable secondary source. However, it isn't at all a broad representation, hence my lukewarm support. I have added another secondary source, but it's also from MIL, and I still think the article needs more. Hopefully some other editors will weigh in. This one doesn't seem to be attracting too much attention, though it's nice to see it being discussed rather than simply !=voted on. :) --Moonriddengirl 23:09, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I am still not convinced. Let's wait for other users to comment on this... --Edcolins 14:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. Orie0505, if you work at Frank B. Dehn & Co., please carefully read Conflict of interest. You may also consider declaring an interest, although this is not mandatory. Thanks. --Edcolins 21:45, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as fails notability requirements of WP:CORP: this legal firm has had no evidience of having demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education. Reliable secondary sources are not cited in the article, and they certainly have given any context by quantifying these effects. --Gavin Collins 15:01, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete References cited not enough to meet WP:CORP. --Randomshoes 13:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep The actual top tier in the Legal 500 is a group of only 7 firms--one of the top 7 UK firms in the field is in my opinion notable. The article there states "Kerry Tomlinson heads 'world-class' Frank B. Dehn & Co., 'who are right at the top of their game.' In 2005 the team, which includes Robert Jackson and Rebecca Gardner, continued to expand its presence in the Norwegian hi-tech patents sector, and won NTNU and Biotec Pharmacon ASA as new clients. Christopher Davies secured a major EPO opposition win in the Medtronic Inc case, while Philip Jeffrey advises Matsushita on DVD technology. The firm also advised eBay on its $2.6bn acquisition of Skype. Matthew Dixon left the firm to head up ip21 Limited's London office." DGG (talk) 16:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete No real evidenc of notability. the Legal 500 links doesn't seem to work and I v much doubt if it is the top teir. Certainly not established by the article. NBeale 23:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - crucially, the firm has no commentary in the Legal 500 overview (here) which would indicate some notability. None of the references are of the substantial commentaries needed. TerriersFan 02:12, 17 September 2007 (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.