Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/McAllister Olivarius


 * 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. causa sui (talk) 22:33, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

McAllister Olivarius

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Contested PROD : Non-Notable London Law firm, fails WP:GNG / WP:CORP Mt  king  (edits)  01:27, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 24 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. Web searches find primary and directory listings, plus a few hits about the principals. Seems to be just a few years old, so could become notable in future, but fails WP:GNG at the moment. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 06:09, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Sounds a little too much like advertisement, and there are no relevant sources. Undoubtedly the firm exists, but this does not make it automatically notable. If (or rather, seeing their links, when) they are involved in some very high-level trial, then they will probably become notable enough to grant a WP entry. McMarcoP (talk) 11:01, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete: My searches found no significant coverage. Fails WP:CORP. SL93 (talk) 15:20, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep: As the creator of the entry, I strongly feel that it should stay. The firm is new but, as its website and some secondary material indicate, it is on the rise. It already sponsors two highly regarded charities and is one of the few American firms of note operating out of London. CellarMist (talk) 12:44, 28 November 2011 (UTC) — Pukkativa (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep: Both managing partners of this firm meet the notability criteria. It also sponsors and funds a number of well-respected and well-known charitable projects. Its presence in London is at least as prominent as that of some of the other firms that meet the notability criteria. I would keep it. -- Pukkativa (talk) 11:55, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. I note that you yourself created the WP entries for both partners within the past few months and just dePROD'd one of them, and that both you and the other "keep" voter have made few WP contributions outside of articles relating to this partnership. I would further note that WP is not meant for promotional purposes, whether commercial, charitable, or otherwise. As to the supposed notability of the partners or their charities, it does not apply to this discussion, as notability is not inherited. And unsupported statements about the subject's prominence from editors having more than a whiff of WP:COI about them are unlikely to carry much weight. If you can, please provide what this article so dearly lacks--evidence of substantial coverage from independent reliable sources. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 12:39, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. Thank you for your comments. As a newcomer, it is useful for me to be corrected on the standards. On reflection, I have to agree with you about notability not being inherited. Fact is: this firm has very little external coverage to date and probably does not currently meet notability criteria, though, in all likelihood, it will soon. As for your other comments about my lack of experience, yes: I am new and have not edited much, but joined only because I felt that the coverage of the UK legal field (my field of interest) is sparse at best. I will be sure to edit more and varied pieces in order to diffuse any whiff of personal interest in this particular firm. -- Pukkativa (talk) 12:50, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete They may be notable, but the article does not show it.  DGG ( talk ) 02:44, 1 December 2011 (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.