Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gadens


 * 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 keep. Yunshui 雲 水 10:30, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Gadens

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Per WP:BEFORE, I believe this law firm fails WP:ORGCRIT. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 01:19, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 01:19, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 01:19, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Withdrawn by nominator. Thank you for your re-write and to the dedicated volunteers of Wikipedia to salvage an article. I am withdrawing this AfD. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 03:41, 30 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Weak keep: Having a quick look at the history of the article, plus search engine 'news' results, there are enough mentions by independent reliable sources to perhaps justify retention as a stub. A law firm that's more than 90 years old, with branches in four capital cities, is in my view likely to be notable enough for inclusion. But I agree the article as it currently stands is severely lacking. Meticulo (talk) 09:06, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - Gadens is a well-known and large law firm in Australia with coverage in several cities (and previously across Australia) and a long history (1928 in its current form), and back to the mid-1800s under previous names. There are enough mentions of the firm in external sources to justify notability. Bookscale (talk) 10:59, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete: Looking at the sources I can find on the internet, none of them rises above routine coverage. Okay, so there are a couple white papers and profiles in industry publications, but they seem to lack independence. On the other hand, they are between 90 and 150 years old, so maybe there are more sources that aren't on the web. Rockphed (talk) 18:05, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: Yes, it's definitely borderline as to whether it all amounts to significant coverage. Here's a few sources I found: The Straits Times, News.com.au, The Courier Mail, ABC News. (Note that several of these are somewhat negative stories about losing branches to rivals, or having to make a damages payout, which would counter the promotional tone of previous versions of the article and leave it more balanced overall). There are also stories locked behind paywalls at The Courier Mail (again), The Australian, The Australian Financial Review and The AFR (again).


 * Hard to say how independent the trade journals/industry publications are, but with multiple articles in the likes of Australasian Lawyer and Lawyers Weekly, combined with the above sources, I'm verging on the side of keep.


 * If we decide on delete, another option would be to merge any content worth retaining into the article for Dentons, which poached the Sydney and Perth offices of Gadens. Meticulo (talk) 23:27, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Except that the firm still exists in its own right, that might be appropriate if the entire firm had merged, but I understand your point. Bookscale (talk) 11:14, 24 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Of the 4 non-paywalled sources you listed, I think only the courier mail article is even borderline significant. The other three are mostly about other things that happen to include mentions of Gadens.  True, two of them are about a settlement between Gadens and a (probably now former) client, but the information there about Gadens is primary coverage, not secondary analysis.  The titles on the pay-walled articles do look promising.  Does anybody have access to be able to check them who is willing to give short analyses of the articles? Rockphed (talk) 11:33, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The Courier-Mail article is a short article on partners being poached, but the Australian article is a long articles about the establishment of the firm's Singapore office in 20113 (which was discussed in detail in the context of the liberalisation of Singapore's legal market), the AFR articles discuss the takeover of the Sydney and Perth offices by Dentons and then the re-establishment of a new Sydney office under the Gadens name. The second and third articles show the most notability. I'd agree with the sentiment that there are likely to be some offline sources discussing the firm (including probably under its older names e.g. Gadens Ridgeway and whatever it was known as before that). Bookscale (talk) 12:21, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you. That sounds like articles that meet WP:ORGCRIT, so I am changing my vote to Keep. Rockphed (talk) 17:59, 25 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment: I've rewritten the article. Suggestions and further edits invited. Thanks, Meticulo (talk) 03:36, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Commment - thanks Meticulo - article is looking better. Bookscale (talk) 10:13, 30 September 2019 (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.