Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kumin Sommers 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.  MBisanz  talk 08:04, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Kumin Sommers LLP

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Pulled from db-spam queue; I could have speedied it, but I have a feeling the creator would have come up with newspaper articles indicative of notability if they had known that's what we needed. Tone was brochure-like, so I blanked the page (so that the "promotional" material wouldn't get copied to mirrors and archives). I've invited the guys from the LAW WikiProject to come have a look. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 15:05, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.  -- - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 15:06, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. NB that Matthew Kumin and Stephen Sommers are each arguably notable, though I would personally have a higher encyclopedic standard for notability under WP:NOTDIR.  (Some of the Sommers hits in that google link are for the director, not the attorney.)  While notability is generally WP:NOTINHERITED, I would argue that a recently-created two-person law firm consisting of two notable attorneys would be notable even if the firm itself has not generated coverage.  THF (talk) 15:19, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment I unblanked for discussion, in the absence of an actual BLP violation. DGG (talk) 20:10, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete A Google News search for this law firm turns up nothing to support notability. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:52, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete, not necessarily with prejudice. Even if this firm is notable, the current article reads like a press release or promotional brochure and is therefore advertising. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:04, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. This discussion brings up an interesting question.  Obviously if someone creates an article intended to sell something and it meets the db-spam requirements, we should tag it and bag it without a lot of second-guessing.  And if we're dealing with an article that seems promotional in some way of a large corporation, then the creator is likely to be either some consumer who doesn't speak for the corporation, or some flak in marketing who probably won't be responsive.  But if we're dealing with professionals ... lawyers, doctors, architects, accountants, etc ... it seems to me that they're more likely to work with us, and help us achieve our own goals, if we extend just a little more courtesy ... for instance, AfD'ing so that they can get intelligent feedback on the various problems, as here, rather than just finding out their article is gone.  Am I off-base here? - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 15:30, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Not off base at all. That certainly could have been done earlier before bringing it here. However, now that is at an AFD its too late and the process must run its course.Broadweighbabe (talk) 03:24, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I told the creator what was needed and gave them a day before I brought it here; and I would argue that for the typical spammer, the tagger and I are the only ones they need to talk with IMO, but intelligent professionals are likely to be skeptical and would appreciate hearing from more people than just me. But point taken; perhaps I'll stubify and discuss a little longer next time and see what I can coax out of them before AfD'ing.  I'm open to suggestions. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 03:30, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 00:04, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete as essentially promotional in nature. WRT the comment, I can't agree that lawyers deserve special treatment on Wikipedia; I think that should be reserved for academics and publishers of academic journals.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  01:58, 23 March 2009 (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.