Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kabateck 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 delete. Consensus is that the firm does not meet our notability standards. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 16:43, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Kabateck LLP

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Notability of this firm has not been established. Coverage seems routine. Serving as a bar association president is not notable. Suing someone is not notable considering PR newswire issues press releases and therefore the articles do not establish notability. Without that, all you get is a Law360 article.. non notable. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ᐐT₳LKᐬ  19:12, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:17, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:17, 6 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete: Does not pass WP:CORP notability. It's also primarily supported by self-published resources, like a press release. Cosmic Sans (talk) 21:41, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep I've recently worked on this article, after considering nominating it for deletion just last week, then doing a little research and changing its name (which seems to have prompted attention and this AfD... Any research ought seek information based on its former name, Kabateck Brown Kellner.) Anyway, having researched, I think there is a lot more to do on this article. I'm still a little on the fence about this one, overall, but tend to think that Kabateck's involvement in more than one class-action suit and his on-going Armenian Genocide reparations work might make him and/or his firm notable. Lindenfall (talk) 21:45, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Alright, but do you have sources to support any of your contentions? Right now, there are no reliable sources which establish the notability of the firm. The thing is, even firms which may seem significant in a certain region are generally not fit for inclusion on WP. If every firm of this size had an article (10 attorneys, ie a small firm; by LA terms a very small firm), this would turn into a business directory. If you have sources which establish notability, please provide them, because not a single one of the current sources does that. And even if the founder is notable, which I certainly do not see a basis for, that does not mean his firm is notable. Notability is not inherited. And your recent edits did draw my attention, as this has been on my watchlist since May, 2018, when I removed some aggressive business promoting for this firm. Even though the POV content is taken out, this article still does little aside from promote a business. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia  ᐐT₳LKᐬ  12:45, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , What contentions? "I think there is a lot more to do on this article" is about it for that. As mentioned, a further time investment into research would be required to know whether the subject is truly notable. Without further research, as also stated, I'm a little on the fence: undecided. I'm not yet sure as to whether the subject or, alternatively, the founder, is notable. What I did do was look into it, and add some WP:RS, which you seem to have overlooked before adding these remarks about the state of the article "right now", a day later. I have nominated law firms for deletion, as I came close to doing with Kabateck, until I got on that fence, as stated. Judging by the time I already put into it, it would take a lot more time to know whether it's worth expanding the page, or changing it to a WP:BLP, and then to do so... none of which I do on demand, despite your sudden need for sources. Have you looked yourself, beyond Wikipedia, to try and determine the subject's notability? Kabateck's term as president of the Los Angeles County Bar Association and his on-going work for Armenian Genocide reparations are, so far, all that keep me from outright favoring deletion. There is quite a bit of media related to both. I have yet to decide whether I even want to weed through it further, so think a discussion regarding is an excellent idea. (A superfluous lecture, not so much, ie: "Notability is not inherited", et cetera. Might I remind you of those wise words from Ted Stevens: "[Wikipedia] is not a big truck, it is not something you just dump stuff on.") I'm not here, nor am I equipped, to defend the page's notability at this stage. While you state that you have had the page on your watchlist since May 2018, back when you "removed some aggressive business promoting for this firm", as you mention (you must have missed the WP:PEACOCKery and its dead-linked press release that I just deleted yesterday); since then, you, apparently, have not found time to do anything about your concerns until now, either, so you can see how time goes. If the page is no longer here when I, again, have time to research it further, I suppose that will save me the effort, and be one off your watchlist. Lindenfall (talk) 17:46, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 21:52, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:20, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions.  — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 03:00, 14 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete Whatever about an article on the main partner potentially meeting the criteria for notability, there does not seem to be any references about the company that meet the criteria for notability. As such, this topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP.  HighKing++ 12:49, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - most of the references are to cases the firm has handled, not about the firm itself - the writeup in Los Angeles Magazine is in the "Special Advertising Section," so it is a paid ad and not independent coverage - does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH: "Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization." - therefore, delete - Epinoia (talk) 16:05, 21 August 2019 (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.