Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Halliwells LLP


 * 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. Dipankan ( Have a chat? ) 07:29, 24 June 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

Halliwells LLP

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Not a notable company. Only seeming claim to notability seems to be the assertion that it was the largest English law firm to go into administration, but otherwise it is just a small law firm that spent too much and went bust as a result. Biker Biker (talk) 09:23, 17 June 2012 (UTC) Hello Biker - as the author I thought I should explain why I think it's notable. This isn't intended to be personal or defensive, just to explain to people who are perhaps not familiar with the issues why they're of interest. First, there's an issue of consistency. Have a look at List of largest UK law firms, and you'll see that Halliwells is number 46. Most of the top 100 have an entry on the basis that they are notable. A firm going bust in unusual circumstances is, in my view at least, more notable than one half its size just getting on with things. Second, there's the point about the pre-pack sale. Pre-packaged insolvency sales really are controversial (and in fact the article on them is a bit out of date and short, and needs updating - google "pre-packaged administration" for proof of this). This is a rare example of the High Court approving a sale which gave little or no benefit to the creditors, and that in itself is significant in the context of the pre-pack debate. Third, there's the litigation against the former partners. I think that probably speaks for itself - how often do you see corporate lawyers going bust and getting sued? It's unusual, and my own view is that this makes it notable. Finally, there is the size of the insolvency. The citation as evidence that it's the biggest law firm failure in British legal history comes from the Law Society's Gazette, ie the official publication of the professional licensing body for the solicitors profession, so, with very great respect, it's not simply an assertion. There has been another big failure of a US firm with a London office in the last few weeks, so the article makes it clear that the "biggest failure" description is limited to the date of Halliwells' failure. I hope that puts the article into context, and I appreciate that it's for others to determine if it's truly notable. And thanks to Biker and to Sionk for taking an interest, and I do hope I haven't broken any rules in this post - If I have, it's inadvertent! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Papinian123 (talk • contribs) 10:08, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - multiple national and regional newspaper articles already cited in the article. Regardless of the reasons why they are notable, they are notable all the same. Meets WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Sionk (talk) 09:54, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:25, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:25, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:25, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep per reasoning above. --Nouniquenames (talk) 16:43, 20 June 2012 (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.