Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IP Law Leaders


 * 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. The SPAs !voting Keep appear to be either meat or sockpuppets; a SPI has been opened. The Bushranger One ping only 18:59, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

IP Law Leaders

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

New law firm. Most, if not all, of the current sources point to unrelated cases not mentioning this firm. Looks a bit like an advertisement and lacks sourced detail.  MBisanz  talk 04:08, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Looks like a WP:COI/WP:PROMO case. --BDD (talk) 13:57, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

--chtousi (talk) 21:42, 9 July 2012 (UTC) — chtousi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep I was asked by some firm personnel to see this wiki page, and while not completely accurate, the article didn't look that bad to me, though I will look it over for any errors. IP Law Leaders was the aka for Albrecht Tousi & Farnum, which has handled the litigations noted, but separated into a new firm some months ago. See Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) and you will see me noted as the principal trial counsel for the cases cited. I have linked to the notations listed. They do not appear to mention our firm, but a PACER search would show it, which any litigator would know how to use. I would appreciate your contacting me with any questions or if inaccurate information is added. I was very flattered someone took the time to write about us, but a little irritated wiki would so easily try to delete it. But then again, I'm not really part of your community, but hope to be one day. thanks, Cameron H. Tousi


 * I've attempted to correct any inaccuracies. Please contact me if you see any additional inaccuracies. --chtousi (talk) 23:02, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Mr. Tousi, I'm new on here too, but you shouldn't criticize what you don't understand. If it wasn't fo rthis review process, Wikipedia wouldn't have any credibility... I did a search on Justia.com, using the old firm name, and cases do verify: http://www.justia.com/search.py?cx=001017683474852908061%3Aoct7h3tcday&q=albrecht+tousi&cof=FORID%3A11. --Philngoldberg (talk) 24:07, 10 July 2012 (UTC) — Philngoldberg (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * The comments above are clearly damaging to the credibility of this firm, so I can only conclude that they have been posted by a competitor wanting to discredit it. If you are actually representatives of IP Law Leaders then I would invite you to consider why anyone would want to engage a firm that can't even get to grips with Wikipedia's guidelines, let alone the much more complex topic of IP law. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:24, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Phil (Bridger) - it says on top "consensus is gauged based on the merits of the arguments" and "assume good faith," the opposite of your comments. if u don't think they're under Wiki guidelines, why not show us why instead of insulting these guys? i also don't think wiki likes these comments to get personal.

now, under wikipedia:verifiability, it says "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Source material must have been published (made available to the public in some form); unpublished materials are not considered reliable. Sources should directly support the material presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made. The appropriateness of any source depends on the context. In general, the best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments; as a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source. Content related to living people or medicine should be sourced especially carefully.

Where available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources, such as in history, medicine, and science. But they are not the only reliable sources in such areas. Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications. Other reliable sources include university-level textbooks, books published by respected publishing houses, magazines, journals, and mainstream newspapers. Electronic media may also be used, subject to the same criteria. See details in Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources and Wikipedia:Search engine test."

the article cites court cases, articles from prestigy law firms, etc., no press releases and self-made info. also, i've visited about 10 law firm Wiki situs today, and can't find any better sourcing, sometimes they have only 1 or 2 sitations. so, i can't figure out why u guys don't think they pass Wiki's guidelines. --Gbgupta (talk) 20:37, 10 July 2012 (UTC) — Gbgupta (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Dear Phil Bridger - We will have to respectfully disagree. Yes, I do complex litigation, and yes, I am that inept :) No hurt feelings here, b/c you're entitled to your opinion and your own lawyer. Best, --chtousi (talk) 23:58, 10 July 2012 (UTC) — chtousi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Keep I posted thee original and I'm wondering why oh why did I do it. In agreement with pgpta, re other law firm citations ... Wilson Sonsini has a total of 2 cites, and if the goal is to keep with wiki principles and not just impose your subjective views into reading the guidelines, they should receive equal treatment. Not fair folks. There's also this thing in Wikipedia called "don't bite the newcomers" - well, 2 elaborate attempts to delete, first as soon as the articles was published, next this one - consider this newcomer bitten. I'm hoping Wikipedia isn't a "don't play in my sandbox" playground, but you could have fooled me. --Awalcott61 (talk) 24:25, 10 July 2012 (UTC)  — Awalcott61 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:52, 17 July 2012 (UTC)




 * Delete. Sorry, guys, but this firm doesn't meet the general notability guidelines. The sources in the article are mostly reliable, but they aren't directly about IP Law Leaders, and I can't find any other relevant sources on the web.


 * Also, "What about article x?" arguments don't hold much weight here; plenty of articles are allowed to exist only because they haven't been noticed. Giving examples of other Wiki articles with notability/verifiablity issues will likely result in those articles being nominated for deletion as well.


 * (And I'm astonished that Phil Bridger thinks Wikipedia's guidelines are less complex than IP law.) DoctorKubla (talk) 06:32, 17 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. I was unable to find any arm's-length third-party sources of expert opinion that talk about the company and any notability it may have as a law firm; most of the cites contribute to greater or lesser degree to notability for other individuals and/or companies.  Ubelowme U  Me  15:29, 17 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete sourcing is just bizarre. Many sources date to prior to the founding of the company but are used to reference claims about the company made in the present tense. Most of the sources fail to mention the company and certainly provide no in-depth coverage. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:57, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. There doesn't appear any reliable independent sources for this article, a concern stated above, as well as a lack of significant important to any action take by the firm. I don't know how it is notable independent of the cases it filed. -- Lord Roem (talk) 16:35, 23 July 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.