Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reid Collins & Tsai


 * 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:35, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Reid Collins & Tsai

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This has been paid promotion (and thus illegal native advertising/deceptive advertising) from the start; but Wikipedia does not tolerate promotion of any kind. The firm routinely practices law as do other law firms, and gets a certain amount of passing coverage when the cases it is associated with are in the news, but this is not enough to satisfy the requirements of our excellent new and more stringent notability guidelines for companies. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:56, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. TMGtalk 23:05, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. TMGtalk 23:05, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:48, 28 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete. A run-of-the-mill directory listing for a run-of-the-mill law firm. --Calton | Talk 04:31, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. There are multiple references primarily about the firm:   These references demonstrate that Reid Collins & Tsai is not a run-of-the-mill law firm. Anything that is deceptive can be fixed through the editing process, although the article seems relatively neutral to me. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:58, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * These references demonstrate that Reid Collins & Tsai is not a run-of-the-mill law firm. Uh huh. Two duplicate links from a trade journal article about a case involving the firm and another one announcing that they pay nice bonuses to their associates. Those two references demonstrate nothing of that kind. --Calton | Talk 00:19, 29 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep. Meets WP:GNG. Well sourced article which demonstrates notability.  13:34, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. The firm has litigated court cases that have been sufficiently notable to receive coverage in Reuters, WSJ, Forbes, Bloomberg Briefs, and various industry media. These reports have focused on the legal cases rather than the law firms fighting them, naturally enough, but representing clients in court cases is what legal firms do, so participation in notable cases is relevant to the notability of the firm itself, it seems to me. An article about Big Macs is significant coverage for McDonalds. So for me it seems clear that coverage of court cases litigated by the firm qualify as significant for the firm itself. Reuters, WSJ, and so on are clearly independent and reliable secondary sources, so taken together I think there is direct evidence for notability from the sources already on the page. Not directly relevant to the English language wikipedia, but there is also a *lot* of coverage of the Shakira -- de la Rua lawsuit in Spanish language media. I'm not sure why this is not mentioned at all on the English language website because coverage of it in Billboard, CBS news, and elsewhere is mentioned on the firm's Wikipedia.es page.T0mpr1c3 (talk) 21:38, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I just brought over a brief summary of the Shakira-de la Rua case from wikipedia.es with references from Billboard, CBS News, and Associated Press.T0mpr1c3 (talk) 22:20, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Except that two out of three of those sources do not mention the firm at all,, and the third only in passing ("... William Reid of Reid, Collins & Tsai ..."). A business does not become notable because it works on notable jobs or because it sells notable products – a car dealer does not become notable because he sells well-known brands of car, a butcher's shop does not become notable because it sells a famous kind of meat, a second-hand charity shop does not become notable because it sells clothes made by famous companies, a plumber does not become notable because he works on a famous building. What is required for notability of corporations is clearly laid out at WP:NCORP, and this kind of passing mention does exactly nothing to satisfy that. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:33, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't accept that. All three articles discuss the suit at length, explicitly name William T. Reid IV as the counsel for one of the parties in the suit, and include direct quotations from him in relation to the lawsuit.T0mpr1c3 (talk) 13:41, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

DEL states that articles that have grounds for deletion:
 * Keep. Although this article has flaws, the guidelines for deletion are strict and this article surely meets qualifications for a Keep vote. It meets WP:GNG by its most strictest terms, with multiple sources containing references to the subject of the article.


 * Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms, original theories and conclusions, and articles that are themselves hoaxes (but not articles describing notable hoaxes)
 * Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed

In this case, at least 5 of the many articles referenced explicitly mention the subject and verify the major claims that the article makes, such as he Shakira lawsuit. Proponents of a Delete vote primarily argue that it isn't notable enough. One even mentions notability guidelines for companies as being against this article, however, it points out that:


 * "No organization is considered notable except to the extent that independent sources demonstrate that it has been noticed by people outside of the organization."

These "stringent" new guidelines undoubtedly acknowledge that this page is flawed, yet the fact that the subject has been mentioned multiple times by outside sources and has been subject to controversy and coverage outside of press releases and other self-published publications. Secondly, the a claim made by Calton appears to be entirely subjective. There is no inherent policy against what one person considers "run-of-the-mill", especially when the article meets keep guidelines. The argument Calton references only a few questionable references, however, further review on his/her part should reveal sufficient referencing to deter deletion. Unless anyone has explicit copy-pastes of a guideline from Wikipedia's extensive archive that overrules the major ones I've brushed over as well as an explanation of why this article fails it/them, this page shouldn't be deleted.

I understand the argument that as a law firm, it may be attempting to advertise itself. The way to combat this isn't by outright deleting an article with a valid claim to notability, it's by reviewing the rhetoric used and changing it to be more impartial. The true beauty of Wikipedia is that anyone can edit it, and with collective effort, this page can look less promotional and more informative.

In finality, as an observer of these democratic proceedings, I have no independent power over whether this page gets deleted or kept, however, I advise reviewers to allow this page to be kept because it meets guidelines for remaining active, and avoids the ones calling for deletion. In advance, I apologized if I'm a bit impassioned, so if anyone has any questions about my position, please let me know! WikiSniki 17:00, 3 July 2018 (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.