Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neinstein & Associates 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:54, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Neinstein & Associates LLP

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )


 * Delete -No independent reliable links for verification can be found. Some links do not cite even the topic title while some are self promoted pr releases.  Dejakh ~ User talk:Dejakh•Special:Contributions/Dejakh 14:31, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 23 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. This is a Canadian law firm, one of many.  They got some press for nominations for some trade awards you probably won't have heard of unless you're a Canadian lawyer, and maybe not even then.  No showing of the sort of significant impact on history, technology, or culture needed to turn a business into an encyclopedia subject. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 19:05, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:MILL and WP:B2B are only essays. They are not policy. WP:SIGCOV/WP:GNG (as opposed to WP:N) has nothing to do with subjective notions of historical, technological or cultural "impact". It is about the volume of material published in reliable sources. James500 (talk) 18:59, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I see the redirect destination of WP:SIGCOV has been changed, and what I actually meant to link to now is WP:ORGSIG: "When evaluating the notability of organizations or products, please consider whether they have had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education." Notability is about whether something is an encyclopedia subject.  It is quite possible for a business to be mentioned in multiple, reliable sources, but unless those sources also suggest a reason why the business should be remembered in an encyclopedia, it shouldn't have an article.  A head count is not enough.  - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 19:35, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I think the list given in ORGSIG has a rather narrow focus. If I was reading an article about a business, I think that I would be far more interested in knowing whether it is a good idea to invest money in it, buy goods and services from it, or enter into its employment. If there were independent reliable sources saying that the business was well regarded, or badly regarded, in these respects, it is not obvious to me why that should be incapable of supporting an article. I am not making any comment on whether that is or is not the case here, though. James500 (talk) 09:53, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * We're not making an investment guide or a business directory here; we're making an encyclopedia. The only subjects in it should be subjects that make the grade for inclusion in an encyclopedia.  Notability isn't temporary; what we need here is something to indicate that this law firm will be remembered 500 years from now: because, by definition, if it's notable, it will be. I don't see that here. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 13:32, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * That is the exact opposite of what NOT TEMP says. NOT TEMP says that coverage in publications does not need to continue indefinately. We are not writing an encyclopedia solely or even primarily for people who will be alive in 500 years time. We are primarily writing an encyclopedia for people who are alive now. James500 (talk) 13:57, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * We are not writing a "guide" only in the sense that we do not give instructions or advice. We can however give the sort of information that people would be likely to have regard to when making decisions. James500 (talk) 14:01, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Not notable, fails WP:CORP for lack of significant coverage by multiple independent reliable sources, either in the article or in a search of Google News Archive. In fact the only significant item I found was this article in Law Times about the senior partner getting his license suspended. (For some reason, the author of the article chose not to include that in the article.) --MelanieN (talk) 00:26, 30 March 2013 (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.