Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Layfield & Barrett


 * 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. Mackensen (talk) 01:58, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Layfield & Barrett

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

All the references listed are promotional, not reliable sources. Not a notable corporation.  Pink Bull  15:37, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - Per nominator. Also, after a quick search, most other sources turn up only press releases. Meatsgains (talk) 16:00, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:42, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:42, 16 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete by all means, a rather newly started local law firm, by far nothing even close to minimal basic notability. I would've frankly PRODed instead. Notifying recent user . SwisterTwister   talk  21:22, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Not all that new: please note that they were started in 2010, but recently rebranded. OnionRing (talk) 22:11, 16 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment - they are currently involved in an interesting legal dispute over anonymity of online commenters on Glassdoor, which is getting some coverage online, mostly from law blogs but also from a few WP:RS:, , , , , , . I also notice that this was already mentioned at Anonymous post. I'm leaning toward keep and improve at this point, but would be interested to hear other editors' opinions first. OnionRing (talk) 22:04, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. OnionRing (talk) 22:07, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. OnionRing (talk) 22:07, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. OnionRing (talk) 22:09, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting to allow time for analysis of the sources presented later in the discussion. Also worthy of relisting because as worded, the nomination appears to be based only upon sources in the article. Of note is that topic notability is not based upon the state of sourcing in articles (WP:NEXIST). North America1000 03:52, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:52, 24 June 2016 (UTC)


 * The page warrants relisting due to the number of notable links. These redirect to useful, informative sites such as Super Lawyers & LATLC  which help elicit legal information. This coupled with the fact that the firm has been hired to represent the case against San Bernardino sheriff department that was involved in a police helicopter shooting episode, which is getting a lot of local and national media attention . Page is getting modified and additions are getting done, so i suggest Keep and improve.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lawedit (talk • contribs) 12:37, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep and improve - new, referenced content has been added supporting its notability. OnionRing (talk) 12:58, 27 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I have reviewed the updated article and my position has not changed. If there is coverage in reliable sources it about one event, at most two events, both somewhat minor events. I would not ascribe that the subject - i.e. the law firm - has received substantial coverage in reliable sources. I have commented on the article talk page that the awards and recognition section is meaningless and not reliably sourced. -- Pink Bull  23:45, 28 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete This is WP:TOOSOON. The firm started in 2010. Yet not a single mainstream source talks about it in detail. Also humanresourcesonline.net is a local magazine which actually relies on press releases for its inputs (and some of its content is user submitted as well). I would consider this a self-published source. In addition, actually references . The articles in the law journals / PRWeb do not convince me. Should more sources be found, I would be glad to have a look. But the ones I managed to search online clearly do not fulfil WP:CORPDEPTH. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:30, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I tried to search for more today and I am sticking to my decision that it doesn't meet WP:CORPDEPTH. There is not one good reliable secondary source. A law firm generally becomes notable if it is played an important role in a notable case or event. Such an event would usually generate mainstream coverage. However, nothing of the sort has happened here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 19:12, 2 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep It doesn’t meet WP-TOOSOON’s criteria due to the fact that the firm’s partners have received a host of notable awards in these few years. Litigator Awards represents the highest honor in trial law in the U.S. Read more about the Super Lawyers selection process here. . Here’s more about the award and honor bestowed by the LATLC, another prestigious organization. . Pe.com as well as the ABA journal, in my objective, unbiased opinion come under mainstream media. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lawedit (talk • contribs) 11:36, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Only 1 keep vote please. I have struck out the latest keep vote. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:39, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:25, 3 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment - Better references added for Awards & recognition.--Lawedit (talk) 22:25, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

*Keep  -Working in legal industry, I understand the awards & recognition they have received so far all of them are completely based on verdicts, settlements & quality of lawyers within the firm plus other news getting covered by national media, this warrants for a spot on Wikipedia. --Truetrialattorney (talk) 19:03, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * — Truetrialattorney (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. —C.Fred (talk) 19:07, 6 July 2016 (UTC) Striking - user is clearly socking, no one participates in an AfD as their first and only edit. &mdash;  Music1201  talk  18:48, 14 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep  - Rapidly growing company, recently filed another high profile million dollar case against County of orange. Deserves a place on wikipedia. --Submitmaster (talk) 01:26, 9 July 2016 (UTC): — Submitmaster (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Further noting their last edit was from 2012 and further nothing the link they provide is dead. — -- Pink  Bull  19:46, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
 * — Submitmaster (talk • contribs) Corrected link added.--Lawedit (talk) 13:42, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for correcting the link. However - and I'm sorry if I'm repeating myself here - the article is not about the law firm. The law firm is just mentioned in the article. The article is about a story that happened, and the law firm is mentioned incidental to the story. There is no article on the actual protagonist of the story. This does not persuade me at all. -- Pink Bull  05:53, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * What exactly is expected in the Wikipedia references? I might be wrong here but isn't law firm always about the clients they represent which makes them big and Notable! I have gone through other articles of law firms on Wikipedia and no one adds the reference of an article which just praises and talks about a firm. Articles like Lyon & Lyon. Paul Hastings,Trevor Law Group or O'Melveny & Myers either have no credible reference or same kind of client related references. Help me understand, what exactly is wrong here and how can we improve this!--Lawedit (talk) 13:33, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll use one of your examples to illustrate. The O'Melveny & Myers page lists this source which is a Washington Post article and the subject of the article is the law firm. It is not just mentioned off offhandedly as part of another story. There are no reliable independent sources that dedicate such attention to the subject of this afd.  Pink Bull  03:53, 14 July 2016 (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.