Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Holman Fenwick & Willan


 * 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:34, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Holman Fenwick & Willan

 * – (View AfD)

Non-notable law firm; only claim to notability is a passing reference by one of its previous employees. Randomshoes 13:20, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - Unreferenced & no assertion of notability. /Blaxthos 13:38, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - This is the 38th biggest law firm in the UK and a well-known name here (see http://www.thelawyer.com/uk100/2006/law/38_holmanfenwick.html). That isn't as major as some, but pretty big. Randomshoes, I am confused as to why you added very random references to this law firm's page before nominating it for deletion. Unlikelyheroine 00:21, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep #86 here. Plenty of third-party coverage establishing notability  --Chaser - T 03:49, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * To follow up on my earlier comments, I've replaced Randomshoes' references with some more relevant refs, added others and expanded the detail in the main body of the article. It's not true that its only claim to notability is as stated, as some looking on the internet shows. This is not some little outfit, but a notable firm (and no, I don't work there!) Best regards Unlikelyheroine 11:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as fails WP:CORP as nominated by Randomshoes. There is an important principal at stake regarding what qualifies as an independent source; as the summaries of more legal cases become available on the internet, links to these cases will be used by law firms to demonstrate notability. However, these court circulars are a matter of record only, and are not an independent source per se. This may not be a little outfit with some history, but this article still fails to establish its notability and a few internet links are not a substitute for proper research from books and journals. --Gavin Collins 09:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Gavin Collins, _none_ of the links in the references in the article are from court circulars, so your comment does not makes sense here. The links are from major legal news sources. Do Wikipedia articles need to contain information from books? If so, do note that the Chambers Guides cited are available in printed form also. If you have a problem with any of the sources actually cited for this article, then by all means go ahead and explain. Best regards Unlikelyheroine 12:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC) 12:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment The issue with the references in that they are very thin in terms of context and are not really independent: Chambers & Partners - a legal directory; The Lawyer.com is a magazine about law firms, both of which publish more or less what is fed to them in terms of corporate press releases. I can only observe that outside of the usual trade publications, the article does not cite any notability. WP:CORP states that Notable means "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice". Press release and trade awards on the internet may make them significant in the trade, but outside the trade the references cited are not evidence of notability. --Gavin Collins 13:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep sourced and to the point, its international offices and its winning of a industry award imply notability. Concerns elsewhere was that this article was spam and served to promote the interests of the firm, if that is the fear of editors than be open and honest about it and bring it up on those concerns, not try and skirt around the issue.KTo288 12:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep looks pretty notable to me. --Dweller 19:00, 5 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.