Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional law firms


 * 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   keep per reasonable suggestions that something else can be done besides deletion. The issue of merging, renaming, rewriting, or what have you can be discussed on the article's talk page. Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:42, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

List of fictional law firms

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Another unsourced list of questionable notability Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 07:02, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete I see no basis on which this particular list would be deemed notable. Per nom, etc. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  07:40, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete doesn't fulfil any of the purposes of lists. It doesn't serve any navigational purpose since the articles linked have very little in common, it doesn't provide a useful information resource and there don't appear to be many sources discussing fictional law firms (as opposed to simply describing something as a fictional law firm). Hut 8.5 10:48, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * If someone wants to write about the perception of lawyers in fiction a better place to do that would be in legal drama or another related article. Hut 8.5 16:31, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Strictly speaking, the material that I have added addresses the perception of law firms in fiction, and not of lawyers generally (although there is plenty to be written on that). Law firms are a different creature. While more than half of attorneys in private practice are now affiliated with multi-lawyer firms, the remainder are still solo practitioners (granting that most solo practitioners are still in their own "firm"), and of course that excludes all of the lawyers who work for the government or are in-house in corporations. Law firms are also more than lawyers. They are businesses, with secretaries, paralegals, accountants, gofers, and sometimes even HR departments, IT departmetns, in-house graphics, and marketing people. Based on my personal experience, one of the major affronts to reality exhibited by fictional depictions of law firms is how understaffed they are with non-lawyers. bd2412  T 18:08, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Note: I have continued adding information with citations. The article is now completely different from that which was originally nominated. Does anyone object to keeping the article as it is currently composed? Cheers! bd2412 T 18:06, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Perfectly legitimate and useful list, helpful to anyone trying to recall any fictional firm. bd2412  T 13:04, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - unencyclopedic cross-categorization, loosely associated topics, WP:NOTDIR.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 14:57, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete- without sources that establish the notability of the topic, we cannot justify an article on it. Reyk  YO!  19:40, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I just added a reference to a source earlier today. That source exemplifies how the existence and conduct of law firms is a recurring theme in legal fiction, so with a little bit of patience, that information can be developed nicely. bd2412  T 21:08, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I have added additional sources demonstrating the notability and range of study of this exact topic. bd2412  T 21:58, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I have further expanded the article with reference to the sources added, and have laid out a standard of notability. I would respectfully request that this AfD nomination be withdrawn or deferred pending additional work on the article. bd2412  T 22:17, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge the new lead into Legal drama, delete the list for listing unconnected trivia. Category:Fictional law firms can continue listing those law firms that have an article. – sgeureka t•c 11:14, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I have not finished reowrking this article, but I can assure you that not all fictional law firms are found in dramas, and there is sufficient coverage of firms in other genres to support keeping this separate. bd2412  T 16:09, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Changed to keep and rename to Law firms in fiction. This is a very different article now from the originally AfDed article. Merging is still an option, but discussion for that should take place on the talk page, not here. – sgeureka t•c 08:15, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per sgeureka. The information that was added recently is interesting and useful, but we are better served if said information is added to the Legal drama article.  None of that information addresses the problem of the triviality of the list. ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive'  14:31, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You can not just "add" the information to a different article while deleting the original content from this one. This destroys the edit history, in violation of the GFDL. bd2412  T 16:10, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I think your content would be better in an article on Lawyers in fiction (or even Law firms in fiction). Any page at this title is going to have to be focused on the list, which is unencyclopedic. Hut 8.5 18:18, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Moving the article to a title that more accurately describes the current content is definitely a viable option. Lawyers in fiction would be too broad (and would exclude much of what is actually goes on in law firms); Law firms in fiction would be appropriate to the direction in which the content is developing. bd2412  T 19:10, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Not an unencyclopedic cross-characterization, perfectly suitable list. If there's a strong desire to do so, every entry can be sourced from primary sources. Jclemens (talk) 20:23, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 * 'Move to Law firms in fiction and remove the sections that are lists of fictional law firms. The information about how law firms are portrayed in fiction is encyclopedic.  The list of specific instances of fictional law firms is trivia.  Karanacs (talk) 14:50, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, possible with the title change Karnacs just suggested. The lists, however, belong as part of the article. Important plot elements in notable  fiction is appropriate content.    DGG ( talk ) 02:39, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisting debate to obtain additional views following substantial rewrite.


 * Keep Legal dramas are quite common and this article provides a good survey of this notable field which serves as an index where we have separate articles such as Dewey, Cheatem & Howe. Our editing policy requires that we keep this good material.  Colonel Warden (talk) 06:04, 27 September 2010 (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.