Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Howse Williams Bowers


 * 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. Michig (talk) 09:25, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Howse Williams Bowers

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Appears to be an unimportant, typical law firm. Contest prod.  Whenaxis  about &#124; talk 22:37, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions.  — Whenaxis  about &#124; talk 22:50, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.  Whenaxis  about &#124; talk 22:51, 21 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Brand-new law firm hasn't had a chance to become notable yet. Of the five sources, #s 1-3 are about the firm's founding this month, and #s 4 and 5 (from last month) are just about the principals having left their previous firm. When the firm does something noteworthy, then it'll be time to have an article. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 23:37, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Barring a merger of notable firms or a major event that would be known by tons of people outside the legal community, such a new law firm cannot be notable.  Nyttend (talk) 01:49, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 23 January 2012 (UTC)


 * KEEP. Though the firm is new it means a big change for HK legal situation.  So many people leaving Reed Smith shows a vote of no confidence.  HWB is now probably the second largest independent (very important for law firms) in HK following http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deacons_%28law_firm%29.  This size firm at startup is quite a large number in HK (it's all relative right?). The new firm has taken the medico-legal practice of Reed Smith with them according to ads in local mags but waiting for references on those.Tinkerhk (talk) 10:46, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTADVERTISING, the whole article seems like a self promoting propaganda, plus given the new date for this law firm, WP:RECENT applies as well. T@ναταΓ (discuss–?) 07:46, 28 January 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.