Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pitmans


 * 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. Big Dom  07:51, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Pitmans

 * – ( View AfD View log )

pure spam, non notable firm Wuh  Wuz  Dat  17:33, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan Talk Contributions 00:18, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Absolutely no Independent Reliable Sourcing. I could find nothing at Google News, and the references in the article are not really references at all. They are more like External Links: three of them to the law firm itself, and the others to twitter; linkedin; a charity that they claim to help; and a legal network they helped to create (the link provided doesn't confirm that, but other info at the network website does). --MelanieN (talk) 00:46, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Delete Almost qualifies as a speedy, as it doesn't even try to establish what makes them notable. No RS, nothing notable, Wikipedia isn't a phone book or biz card.  Dennis Brown (talk) 01:48, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Can't find any evidence of notability. Qrsdogg (talk) 05:13, 31 March 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.