Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of law firms (2nd nomination)


 * 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. - Mailer Diablo 12:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

List of law firms
This has passed an AfD with no consensus, but I don't see any reason why the article needs to exist. It's full of redlinks, the notability of the included firms is often dubious, and the content is nothing more than a list. If a firm meets WP:CORP then it should have an article, and categories would be a better bet for listing law firms. Perhaps an article about particularly notable law firms (suggested in the previous AfD would work, but this list seems to be a list of firms of questionable notability. Delete Lurker  haver 11:08, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete funnily enough I just came accross this page and was considering its deletion. I think it warrants deletion because there is absoloutely no criteria for inclusion in this article. Listcruft. Viridae Talk 11:23, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete This list has the potential to become incredibly large without any consideration as to the notability of the firms added. If a law firm is notable enough to deserve inclusion in wikipedia it should have its own article and be included in the category law firms. --IslaySolomon 12:06, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - Category:Law firms covers anything this article could acheive - Peripitus (Talk) 13:25, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - I agree. However a check should be made that all firms with a blue link are categorised correctly.  Peterkingiron 15:16, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - "It's full of redlinks" is exactly why a list is good - catagories can only hold things that have articles, lists can be made before all articles have been made. LinaMishima 17:50, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I disagree. If an article consists mainly of redlinks, its often about people or organisations that aren't notable enough to warrant their own articles. Since a category only includes subjects of articles, they tend to be about something notable Lurker  oi!  13:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete Unclear as to the extents of this - what counts as a law firm? LinaMishima 17:50, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. But only if some criteria are established as to notability, otherwise any little firm could be added. The existence of categories does not make lists redundant - they serve different purposes. -- Necrothesp 22:47, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete The major firms have articles, and we should not be encouraging creation of many more articles about law firms as most of them are of no importance. Piccadilly 10:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong delete I tried quite hard to bring some order to this page; establishing minimum criterea for inclusion; linking the lists to third party sources (to try to independently determine importance) - nothing worked. Free advertising is just too alluring for lawyers, and every Sue, Grabbit and Runne in Shitsplatt, Idaho puts their firm's name in there.  I agree key law firms should keep their individual article, but a list of law firms article is just too unwieldy and, frankly, too uninteresting, to be worth all the aggravation.  It is already covered by Category:Law firms.  The other point is that there was never any satisfactory sub-division.  Currently it is done by countries, but many firms have offices in multiple countries.  And the country approach takes no account of areas of expertise.  You would be hard pushed to find a leading human rights law firm on the list.  Let's just get rid of it.  And let's knock off List of U.S. law firms, List of largest UK law firms and List of Israeli law firms whilst we are at it.  Legis 16:52, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete This can be better handeled through categories. No aparent added value in the list.  Eluchil404 21:07, 16 August 2006 (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.