Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nabarro LLP (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   keep. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:48, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Nabarro LLP
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )
 * Strong deleteReads like an advertisment. Suspect notability. Article author recently banned after it was revealed the account was operated by a law marketing firm. Intendance13 who was recently banned clearly works for this organisation who promote Nabarro: http://www.intendance.com/experience/clients/ isfutile:P (talk) 10:12, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong deleteReads like an advertisment. Suspect notability. Article author recently banned after it was revealed the account was operated by a law marketing firm. Intendance13 who was recently banned clearly works for this organisation who promote Nabarro: http://www.intendance.com/experience/clients/ isfutile:P (talk) 10:12, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - Completely irrelevant as the article has since been completely re-written. This discussion is about the notability of Nabarro. Rangoon11 (talk) 16:13, 27 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong keep - There are three separate issues here: (1) who wrote the article, (2) whether the article reads like an advertisement, and (3) whether Nabarro is notable. I am in the process of improving the article to address points (1) and (2), where I accept that there were issues. On point 3 I am certain that the firm is highly notable, and a quick Google search should reveal a large number of references in third-party publications. I will also add some such references to the article. Rangoon11 (talk) 11:00, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. Article is a marketing brochure. Contrary to Rangoon, a Google search reveals mainly self published and PR references. Not notable. Jonathanwallace (talk) 13:08, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment I have now tidied-up the article and removed the promotional content. Not sure why you are not seeing the same Google results as me. Rangoon11 (talk) 23:00, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Keep This seems to be a fairly large firm, with 125 principals (Law Society website) and claiming to have 277 qualified solicitors and annual turnover of £113m. Whilst I cannot find reliable information online about how it ranks amongst UK firms it is clearly well up there. Admittedly there is a problem in assessing notability when we have have firms large or canny enough to employ people to promote them, but there is real substance behind this one. AJHingston (talk) 00:57, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, should have looked on Wikipedia. It is ranked at number 25 in the List of largest UK law firms. Admittedly there probably need to be objective grounds for deciding notability here, and size isn't everything, but it is a major factor. AJHingston (talk) 09:06, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep per Rangoon11 and AJHingston, this is a major UK law firm. Tim! (talk) 21:13, 28 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 25 January 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.