Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Haldanes Solicitors and Notaries


 * 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. Obviously disregarding the IPs.  Sandstein  18:53, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Haldanes Solicitors and Notaries

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable law firm. Every law firm has references. That doesn't make them notable.

Note to any closer: There has been a long history of sockpuppetry with this article. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:23, 8 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete per nominator. Not notable. Article originally created by single-purpose accounts with undeclared conflict of interest for promotional purposes, contrary to Wikipedia policy. Citobun (talk) 03:09, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - Fails WP:CORP, with no substantive, independent coverage available in reliable sources. I expect this page to become another sock target; if so, please report them here. GABgab 03:26, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Not Delete WP:NPOV All of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. The Useful knowledge related to law. One of the reference 'Business Crime Defence 2016: Analysis' is one of the good knowledge about Business Crime Defence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.202.191.243 (talk) 06:37, 8 September 2016 (UTC)  — 123.202.191.243 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Not Delete conform with WP:PSTS - ample third parties' references and independent secondary sources are there. this article, in fact, contain more independent references (i.e. Not self serving or promotional) than many articles about other organizations or companies that I came across on Wikipedia. Also, WP:ORG - notability seems to be satisfied given the broad spectrum of legal references from different countries (I saw the names of legal directories and I click on all these). Do not see why it would constitute "advertising" or "promotion"? Would it be a bit too harsh? --124.217.188.198 (talk) 07:53, 8 September 2016 (UTC) — 124.217.188.198 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Delete. I see no evidence of WP:NCORP notability. Sufficient in-depth coverage could provide WP:GNG notability, but despite the large number of references I'm not seeing any of that either. It all seems to be essentially press releases, directory-type listings, primary company sources, advertorial, a couple of passing mentions in stories that are not about Haldanes itself, and one in Chinese that I can't read (though having seen all the rest, I don't hold out much hope). It's the kind of trivial reference flood I'd expect COI editors to use to try to make a company appear notable. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:03, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. shoy (reactions) 13:09, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. shoy (reactions) 13:09, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. shoy (reactions) 13:09, 8 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep - i note that there are many experienced Wikipedians or Editors here, who seem to have already made up their minds on deleting this company page. I suspect that what i say here may not make a difference at all under these circumstances. That said, I think it is fair for me to say something here.
 * Regarding the comment on WP:CORP, i note that this company has quoted different sources justifying its historical and functional importance. Those are the company's own website information, legal directories' analysis, legal news magazines, newspapers, legal awards organisations. Also, these sources are both local and overseas. If this does not satisfy notability (at least some notability), i wonder what would?
 * Regarding the comment on WP:NPOV, the article seems very straightforward and factual. Could anyone enlighten wikipedians and myself as to why it amounts to an advertisement?
 * I was browsing the current wikipedia pages of various Hong Kong companies and political figures, and notice that many non-notable, non-objective profiles are still there for wikipedians to browse. Not trying to criticise anyone, such profiles include:
 * Politician Steven Ho (whom i have no idea who he is) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Ho_(politician) - where is the notability? why is it not deleted?
 * Policitician Peter Wong (again, i have no idea how "notable" he is) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Wong_(Hong_Kong_politician) - where is the notability?
 * Not trying to compare a company to a restaurant, many unknown restaurants with "promotional" wikipedia entries still exist, and nobody seems to want to remove them:
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dai_Pai_Dong_(restaurant) - where is the notability?
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flagship_Entertainment - seemingly an unimportant article
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Seafood_Floating_Restaurant - pure promotional article / advertisement
 * I would prefer if Wikipedia could apply more consistent policies on WP:NPOV,WP:CORP and WP:PSTS for users / editors / readers to follow. In my very humble opinion, the company page in question is much better than the wikipedia pages that i mentioned above, and should have way satisfied the relevant policies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.203.134.209 (talk) 13:57, 8 September 2016 (UTC)  — 123.203.134.209 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * A couple things. First, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a convincing argument for keeping this article. (But, since you brought up the politicians – if you review the relevant notability policy [specifically WP:POLITICIAN], it states that legislative councillors satisfy notability criteria. As for the restaurants, anyone can edit Wikipedia. Nobody is stopping you from nominating those pages for deletion.)


 * Secondly, would you and your colleagues please stop making sockpuppet accounts and switching IP addresses to comment on this discussion? It is against Wikipedia policy and you are wasting the time of volunteers. Citobun (talk) 14:14, 8 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete, WP:MILL. TJRC (talk) 23:06, 8 September 2016 (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.