Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oblon, Spivak, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, P.C.


 * 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. John254 17:28, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Oblon, Spivak, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, P.C.

 * — (View AfD)

Minor law firm, WP:CORP - crz crztalk 15:52, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete for failure to meet WP:CORP. Could easily be speedy deleted under WP:CSD:G11 as well. Gwernol 15:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think so, but if you do it, I won't cry. - crz crztalk 15:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Changed to Weak keep based on the evidence shown on the article talk page. This is still right on the cusp of notability, so I reserve the right to change my opinion again :-) Gwernol 18:06, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete. I couldn't find any sources that gave more than a passing mention to the law firm - the stories were about the court cases themselves. It's possible, but I think unlikely, there are more detailed sources in which case it should be kept. Trebor 16:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Changed to Keep in light of new sources - it seems to pass WP:CORP now. Trebor 21:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Please take a look at the comments on the article's talk page by another editor arguing that the article should be kept. The March 2005 issue of Intellectual Property Today magazine listed the firm as #1 in patents in the United States. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 17:33, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * A trade magazine. Only known to professionals in that sub-industry. Much like "magic the gathering magazine" should not be used to justify the notability of a magic player. In our general encyclopedia, general notability is required. - crz crztalk 17:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's entirely true. Reading our guidelines on reliable sources I see nothing to indicate that a trade publication is inherently unreliable for these purposes. Of course this particular publication may be unreliable, but we'd need evidence of that. I am coming round to the opinion that this article should probably be kept. If it is kept it needs to be rewritten so it doesn't read so much like an advert and (most importantly) so that the reference from the talk page is added to the article itself Gwernol 18:06, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd have to think that the March 2005 Intellectual Property Today report does not establish notability. All it is is a ranking of law firms by the number of patents issued over a three year period, and after State Street, its not that hard to get a patent.  What WP:CORP expects is the article to provide substantial coverage of the firm, which this article does not.-- danntm T C 18:52, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * A new law.com article citation was added to the article, which includes several paragraphs relating details of this law firm's advertising activities, and further rankings have been cited, as well. The case for notability should be stronger in view thereof. --Ryanaxp 21:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Your objection here is off-base; we do look to trade mags for specialty areas. If pro-gamer is recognized as top in his field by PC Gamer, or magic player by Proquest, or porn star by AVN, aren't these good sources to take the word of? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, that ranking and these establish notability. Crz, you can't pick and choose your reliable sources. Danntm, lack of references is an excuse for tagging, not for AFD. --Dhartung | Talk 20:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I am sorry, sir. I won't let that happen again. - crz crztalk 20:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Please understand, I was just addressing one particular source, I hadn't made up my mind until now.-- danntm T C 21:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep (disclosure: original author). I updated the article to reference some additional rankings and a law.com article featuring non-trivial information regarding the law firm, and added a few more factoids regarding the firm's date of founding and relocation to Alexandria.  It would seem that in view of these, Oblon Spivak meets the criteria of WP:CORP, because the relevant rankings are compiled by independent entities and the law.com article is written by a sizeable and independent journalistic webzine.  --Ryanaxp 20:55, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep sufficient sources have now been brought forth to establish notability.-- danntm T C 21:27, 2 January 2007 (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.