Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Haim Zadok & 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   Keep (non-admin closure) Quantpole (talk) 00:59, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Haim Zadok & Co.
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG. References provided show notability for attached individuals and a mention in a couple of articles on cases - that is, however, moot. Notability is not inherited (and so the founder's importance is irrelevant) and a couple of brief press quotes from cases they were involved in does not count as "substantial" coverage. Ironholds (talk) 23:09, 24 November 2009 (UTC) Ironholds (talk) 23:09, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep. Clearly notable. The scope of its activities is international in scale, and information about the firm and its activities can be verified by third-party, independent, reliable sources. Coverage is international in scope.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:01, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * "significant" coverage by third-party, independent, reliable sources? No. You've pulled up what, six sources, all of which use little quotes from the firm and its involved people. That is not significant. Ironholds (talk) 09:13, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The article now hhas more than six third party independent RSs. The Sharon litigation, which the firm handled, is the most famous libel litigation of the last few decades that I can think of.  The clients mentioned in other matters are all the uber-rich or include some of Israel's biggest companies.  The references to the founder's notability as a distinguished lawyer counts of course -- the same way a band that has Paul McCartney play for it becomes notable because its constituent member is notable.  I see from the below comment that you note the improvement in the article. If someone can add the article that no doubt exist in Hebrew, we will have more, but I do not know if we will get them.  Do we have enough now for you to consider withdrawing the nom?--Epeefleche (talk) 16:18, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed, although I can never work out how to withdraw - feel free to consider this a request to handle it. And actually, no; notability is not inherited. And under our music guidelines, a band with Paul McCartney in would not necessarily be notable :P. Ironholds (talk) 16:31, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete - per nom. \//\ - 09:36, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. Very notable, many reliable sources, described as a leading firm on Dun's 100, hired for some of the biggest cases in Israel. Don't understand where Ironholds is coming from and what his/her objection could possibly be (could there be some personal grudge at work here?)--Gilabrand (talk) 12:52, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, you've uncovered my COI - I, a law student, have a strong hatred of law firms. I also can't stand people who accuse users of grudges without any firm evidence simply because they disagree with them. It is worth noting that the statement above was written when the article was in a very different stage from where it is now. I would appreciate either a) a withdrawal of your baseless and laughable query or b) some kind of evidence beyond "I don't like what he's written". Ironholds (talk) 15:41, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. The coverage is marginal at best, with virtually nothing specifically about the firm. Quantpole (talk) 17:02, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I missed Ironholds' comment above, and am happy to view consensus here as keep, and have no objection to the closing of this. To explain my vote a smidgen more, my reading of the GNG is that coverage has to be principally about the subject matter, or at least contain significant information about it. In this case most of the references seemed to be either about a particular lawsuit or Haim Zadok himself, and not about the firm. However, I can see this is a debatable position. Quantpole (talk) 00:55, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep There are multiple references, and a good cite for the firm's importance. I cannot close as nomination withdrawn, in view of the above good faith "delete", which argues a basis in policy.     DGG ( talk ) 18:23, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep This law firm, if you read the citations, has a significant relationship with certain members of the Israeli government, and has been a part of cases with regional and international significance.Ollie Garkey (talk) 19:44, 25 November 2009 (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.


 * Strong keep Per DGG.--217.132.10.112 (talk) 06:42, 26 November 2009 (UTC)