Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of largest European law firms (excluding UK) (2012)


 * 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. Concerns of arbitrariness and provable significance. Guy (Help!) 15:20, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

List of largest European law firms (excluding UK) (2012)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )
 * Try also:
 * Try also:
 * Article was moved (by me) during AFD to more general title "List of largest European law firms (excluding UK)". -- do ncr  am  16:21, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Try also:
 * Try also:
 * Article was moved (by me) during AFD to more general title "List of largest European law firms (excluding UK)". -- do ncr  am  16:21, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

This seems to be a WP:COPYVIO because it says that it is "taken from the European 100 survey released by the UK legal magazine The Lawyer." I do not think that this is in public domain because I get hit by a paywall when trying to access the data. My second point is that even if this isn't a WP:COPYVIO, I don't think that this is notable. I could possibly see notability in a national or even a European Union list, but it seems so trivial to pick and choose what countries to include or exclude. Tavix | Talk 00:22, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America1000 00:43, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. North America1000 00:43, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. North America1000 00:43, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America1000 00:43, 15 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep, and probably modify. Make it about all European law firms (including U.K.), say.  For covering law firms, we need list-articles like this.  And one source about the top 100 as of one point in time is not good, we should get and use more sources.  But the list-article topic is notable...there are multiple articles and reports about top law firms in each of many countries or larger areas including Europe.  Rather than having AfDs about individual firms' articles, best to have list-articles to which individual firms can be redirected.  Avoid any appearance of copyvio by changing the focus to be not about 2012 list, but rather about top/biggest law firms in Europe, period.  So some firm that once was huge but then later went out of business would be included (as has happened, I recall reading about, for one huge New York City-based firm).


 * The issues here--including some about law firms--is under discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(organizations_and_companies). Especially please see about law firms at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law, where  and  and me and perhaps more, are discussing.  A main point that I make there is (with emphasis included in original):"There should be a list-article covering the at least the top tier ones in each nation or major group, showing redlinks where new articles are needed. All in the top tier achieve at least "list-item notability" (a lower standard than notability for having a separate article). A firm's row in the list-article would serve as a reasonable target for a redirect, as a nicer AFD outcome than outright deletion. And the list-article would help rationalize the process for all editors interested in the topic area."


 * So, keep this list-article and work with it. Excluding U.K. or not, relying overly much on one source for one year, etc., are good appropriate content issues and worth discussing, working out at Talk page. -- do  ncr  am  03:22, 15 May 2015 (UTC)


 * This satisfies LISTN, at least with modification. The parent topic is European law firms (including the UK) or continental law firms (which can be distinguished from anglo-american law firms due to the presence of continental law, the absence of the English language, their tendency to be smaller etc). Those are both notable as a group. And LISTN says we can spin off daughter lists without regard to notability. There's nothing wrong having a list of the largest by revenue, and nothing wrong with having multiple lists for particular dates, such as annual lists, provided they can be sourced, since the ranking will change over time. As for copyright, I was under the impression that non-creative lists weren't eligible for it. You might consider removing the last three columns of the table, to reduce it to rank, name and revenue. In any event, you need to actually look at the source to ascertain whether there is a copyvio. James500 (talk) 11:32, 17 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. It's probably not a copyvio as it's directory information (first 100 companies in a given sector within geographic area by turnover). However, it's only a list of "largest" law firms in "continental Europe" according to a single source - 'The Lawyer' trade magazine. The arbitrary restrictions such as coverage and equating of "largest" with turnover (different from growth and unrelated to verifiable significance), are a consequence.


 * It doesn't meet WP:LISTN, having been compiled using ill-defined terms like "continental Europe", making it arbitrary by definition. We can't be sure what definition the magazine had in mind but going by our article on it the list likely excludes at least 5 European Union countries: Malta, Ireland, United Kingdom, Sweden and Finland.


 * Try making an article about a general company and saying on its AfD it should stay because "it makes insert-bigdollar-figure-here and to prove it's ClearlyNotable here's cites to company reports plus trade directories/lists". Consensus has consistently rejected unevidenced and inherent claims of notability (WP:ORGSIG and WP:NRVE). Yet that's what's waved as justification for a lot of the articles constructed from and linked in these law firms in X list-articles. Essentially it's resulting in unapproved formulaic stubs which the community has said said we do not want – see WP:MASSCREATION policy.
 * Discussions linked above show this list and siblings are being used to "industrially" create standalone pages without regard to in-depth secondary sourcing. If a law firm is notable in Wikipedia terms, multiple third-party & independent reliable secondary sources will have written about the organisation in depth.


 * I see no significant evidence this List is significant in its own right, widely written about, had major influence on attitude or approach to any particular thing nor any other verifiable impact either. At most, a link to or citation of the original trademag article belongs in a WikiProject 'possible resources' subpage, with the understanding mere inclusion therein doesn't warrant creating articles on the listitems. Find sources, then use them to write articles. I also question appropriateness of duplicating a magazine's yearly list (multiple years have been re-created here), even if it is permissible under copyright law.


 * I'm unconvinced by suggestions of altering the awkward scope to incorporate additional hoped-for sources. It wouldn't address the problems above and may prove not possible where different compilers draw up their listing according to different criteria and interpret data in different potentially unspecified ways. –146.199.151.33 (talk) 18:45, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * ORG applies to individual organisations, it does not apply to lists of organisations, which are governed by LISTN. This list does not need to be "significant in its own right, widely written about, had major influence on attitude or approach to any particular thing nor any other verifiable impact either". What matters is whether continental law firms are notable as a group, which they obviously are. The extent of continental Europe is not particularly ill defined. Its boundaries are the limit of European Russia in the East and the Mediterranean in the South. If Sweden, Finland or any other relevant country has been missed out, all we have to do is ascertain the revenue of their largest law firms and add the missing entries to the list. And we could, in any event, change the scope of the list to the EU or etc. Whether editors are creating inappropriate articles about individual law firms has no bearing whatsoever on the appropriateness of this list. Such articles would be created, and just as frequently, whether this list exists or not. (If anything, this list might actually discourage the creation of articles on non notable firms that don't meet its size threshold). In practice consensus at AfD favours the retention of articles on organisations that exceed a certain size: the guidelines are supposed to be descriptive, not prescriptive, and we can in any event fall back on NRVE ('sources are likely to exist') and IAR ('guideline is detrimental'). Whilst revenue isn't the only measure of 'size', that particular issue can be dealt with by a simple page move (add the words "by revenue" to the page name). James500 (talk) 18:26, 19 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom - This is clear promotion. Article was made by SPA that made this list, edited other lists and also did an article for a law firm that - surprise! - was on these lists. —Мандичка YO 😜 11:51, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: This list is manifestly not promotion. Having a "list of largest X" is not inherently promotional, irrespective of what X is. There is no POV that I can discern. Whether the creator of this article is an SPA, and the nature of his editing in other articles, has no bearing on whether this list is promotional, which is determined only by the contents of this article. WP:ATA says that any argument based on who or what the creator of the article is, and so forth, is always invalid. James500 (talk) 18:21, 21 May 2015 (UTC)


 * {|cellpadding=0 style="border: 1px solid #A3A3A3; background-color: #FFFFFF" align=left width=auto


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. North America1000 10:02, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * }
 * Comment: Regarding the comment above by 146.199.151.33 about Sweden and Finland being excluded, it actually suffices to look at the lists it to see that they are not. Several firms from each country are included. --Hegvald (talk) 11:26, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - Seems like a pretty blatant example of over listification. NickCT (talk) 15:41, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh? How so?  The wikipedia essay to which you link gives several potential reasons to deem something "over-listified", but not one of the reasons seem to apply here. -- do  ncr  am  16:09, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Overlistification talks about "non-notable intersections" in a couple different contexts. WP:LISTN talks about this in terms of cross-categorization. The basic rule is that to have a list of something, that something has to be notable. In other words, "largest European law firms (excluding UK)" has to be a notable subject in and of itself. It obviously it isn't. NickCT (talk) 19:36, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The group of firms obviously is notable because The Lawyer produced a list of them. And that is significant coverage in an independent, reliable secondary source. Overlistification is for cross categorizations we have invented ourselves, not those recognised by that type of source. James500 (talk) 19:06, 26 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment. The quality of delete arguments in this AFD seems poor.  Accusations of copy-vio seem to be wrong.  Accusation of arbitrariness in excluding UK from rest of Europe seems misguided:  U.K. follows common law tradition while continental Europe generally does not.  No SPA present and argument of SPA-ness is specious.  Not promotional.  On the Keep side are pretty good arguments that this does satisfy LISTN and that this helps development of Wikipedia coverage in the general topic area of law firms in Europe.  I do happen to think that the 2012- and publisher-specific aspects of the list should be changed...it should be broader in scope and use the one publication as just one source...but that change is for discussion at article Talk, is not for AFD.  I hope/expect the closer will take quality of arguments properly into account. -- do  ncr  am  16:09, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Further, I have boldly moved the article to the more general title "List of largest European law firms (excluding UK)". -- do ncr  am  16:21, 22 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment - do  ncr  am 's argument seems pretty poor. He's misinterpreted and misunderstood the delete arguments, and has mistakenly suggested keep arguments seem to have a stronger position. NickCT (talk) 19:41, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment if this isn't a copyvio, then I want evidence that The Lawyer gives express permission to replicate their list. If not, we can't just "take" their "European 100" survey and reuse it. It's the same reason we can't have a yearly list for the Time 100. Also, per WP:LISTN: "a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources." I haven't seen independent reliable sources on a list of European law firms per year by revenue excluding UK. Like I said earlier, I do think a list of law firms by nation is notable. But this isn't it. Tavix | Talk 22:37, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * No. The "list topic" is continental law firms. That is the group. This is a daughter list of the list of continental law firms, and LISTN says we can spin those off without regard to notability. And, even if I was wrong about that, the article in "The Lawyer" is significant coverage of the group of firms here listed. If there is a professionally published list, that is exactly the sort of coverage LISTN is looking for. And it is the group of firms that has to be notable, not the list. James500 (talk) 19:06, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It's clearly not "continental Europe" as there are several entries from Ireland and one from Cyprus as well. Like the title says, the subject is "European law firms (excluding UK)." Since I'm still not seeing sources, my previous comments are still applicable. Tavix | Talk 00:27, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * stated "this is a daughter list of the list of continental law firms"? Where is that parent?  There is List of largest European law firms which merely provides links to separate list of the 2005, 2009, 2011, 2012 top firms (top 100 now, fewer earlier), but there is now single overall list of European law firms.  I think there should be one, and I suggest making this one it (and i moved it to a suitable name already).  The one list probably should contain any firm included in any one of those top firms as of YR ones, and can even give comments e.g. "Firm X, ranked 7 in 2012 per Source, was largest in 2011" for those having big changes.  Or have a column on evidence of largeness and list "#1 in 2012 ($40 zillion) / #7 in 2011 ($50 zillion)" and cover defunct ones "#17 in 2009; merged into Firm Y in 2010".  This is then clearly not just copying one source's list in same order as that source.  Frankly I think the separate year lists should be "deleted" by redirection to this one list; they don't add much now and all info can be included into one column in the one big list of European firms.  I think/hope we are closer to agreement than it has seemed.  That is to say I suggest amending this AFD to consider them all, or just agreeing that the redirecting of other ones should be done.  I think the rankings year by year are likely to be somewhat bogus as based on this source's rough estimate of revenues from the outside (I assume no one really knows all these separate numbers).  A somewhat arbitrary order created by imperfect estimations should not be enshrined in the encyclopedia.  One list, however, is a reasonable split from the worldwide "List of law firms" at  Lists_of_companies like other continents are split off.  Is there any other area which includes multiple separate year articles (there is none at the top level)?  Maybe  and other editors would be supportive of this?  How would I signify this opinion, would voting "Merge" be more descriptive (and is that an option?). -- do  ncr  am  17:08, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Are these numbers not taken, by the magazine, from accounts the firms are required to publish, or from numbers communicated upon request to the magazine by the firm? There are sources discussing revenue surveys eg . Perhaps the answer is given by something like that. James500 (talk) 13:33, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 16:28, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Responding to, the revenues of law firms are not generally reported.  Publicly traded firms are required to report financial statements, in any reasonable stock market setting in any country, but law firms are seldom publicly traded.  Law firms are typically partnerships.  Any magazine that reports a ranking by revenues is relying upon voluntary reporting and estimates to fill in the gaps.  The gaps will be big.  This is like Fortune magazine's ranking of the world's richest persons ...it is an art not a science...it's a game.  Perhaps if the UK magazine The Lawyer has been running its listing for a long time, and the ranking has some marketing value, then perhaps some firms covered and ranked lower than they should be will choose to come forward with their revenues, but there's no guarantee, no auditing process, no assurance that any ranking is correct.  So, Wikipedia should not unthinkingly put forward as encyclopedic "truth" any ranking in any one year.  What we can do is report on apparently large or otherwise salient law firms, as reported in sources.


 * About other sources:
 * Chambers and Partners is one major source ranking individual lawyers and ranking firms and ranking law firm networks. For example:
 * Chambers and Partners review about top law firms ranked into "bands" 1, 2, 3, for specialty of Banking and Finance, for the Eastern European region
 * Chambers and Partners about "band 1" law firm networks in Europe


 * Legal 500's methodology, "explained" for its Europe list here and for its U.S. list here is that it surveys/contacts all the firms and, then, voila, by its internal black-box process, comes out with its rankings. Happily they self-report that they are able to "properly assess" the law firms... "Our team of experienced researchers – which includes both qualified journalists and lawyers – spend several months each year conducting in-depth research into the market. The primary source of our information is the law firms themselves, and the information they provide is often not for public consumption. This allows us to properly assess them against one another, practice area by practice area. We also gather feedback from peers and clients to assess their overall visibility and reputation. The process culminates in detailed rankings and editorial, providing buyers of legal services with an objective analysis of the US market that is updated annually. - See more at: http://www.legal500.com/assets/pages/united-states/united-states.html#sthash.opfvGlp9.dpuf "


 * Law firm sources are also discussed also at:
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law (within [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law) a still-open discussion
 * Articles for deletion/Sebalu & Lule, an AFD that was closed Keep


 * To the closer, while one reasonable thing to do here is to say "no consensus", that is not really helpful. It would be better to say the consensus is to keep one large list, but to merge/delete the separate year lists.  So, "Keep" on the specific article AFD'd which has already be renamed to be more general. -- do  ncr  am  17:40, 6 June 2015 (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.