Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NABARRO LLP


 * 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.  So Why  13:11, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

NABARRO LLP

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Declined speedy; promotional tone, no references (third-party or otherwise). KurtRaschke (talk) 16:32, 13 November 2008 (UTC) *Speedy delete as copyvio http://www.nabarro.com/about-us I will tag as such. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:47, 14 November 2008 (UTC) 
 * Keep and cleanup. The tone of the article is definitely promotional, but apparently the people at Nabarro are not the only ones saying this is a good company. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 17:05, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Addendum. I would say that a law firm that has nearly 1000 employees would qualify as notable. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 02:01, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.   -- RayAYang (talk) 17:14, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.   -- RayAYang (talk) 17:14, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete No claims to nobility even if many of its staff like working there! Paste (talk) 17:50, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Well, portions are definitely copied off their website, but I couldn't find the history section which makes up the bulk of this article. As it contains no references and serves solely as a corporate profile and advertisement I think it should be deleted. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:40, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:18, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. The only example of detailed coverage by independent reliable sources that I found was this recent article in a local newspaper. Not enough here to pass WP:ORG. Most of the info in the article is unsourced (not even to the firm's website), so looks like WP:OR. Nsk92 (talk) 02:04, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete: notability is not asserted. Do it sounds like an advertisement for the law firm? Alexius08 (talk) 10:19, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep A UK law firm with 4210 layers is large enough to be notable. Look for some real sources. DGG (talk)


 * 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.