Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rimon Law Group


 * 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. Canley (talk) 12:18, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Rimon Law Group

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable company, per WP:CORP. Available information is all promotional. The references in Reuters and Marketwatch come from press releases. Also, previously deleted under name Rimon Law Group, Inc. John Nagle (talk) 00:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Neutral. I agree that the Reuters and Marketwatch pages cited in the article are press releases (the same press release, in fact), but there is one legitimate newspaper story which appeared in j. the Jewish News Weekly of Northern California. Is the one newspaper story enough to demonstrate notability? I'm not sure. --Eastmain (talk) 01:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Sufficiently sourced, independent press and notable. Bstone (talk) 02:10, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete - only one piece of non-trivial and independent coverage. WP:N specifies multiple. WP:HEY would be at least one more of these - preferably one that is slightly higher profile (specifically less local). Brilliantine (talk) 03:09, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I've just had a look at WP:N and it does not stipulate multiple sources in order to pass the WP:N test. Bstone (talk) 04:08, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I take the use of plural throughout to imply that one single source isn't good enough. This is how I've always interpreted it and that's not going to change, as it seems like a perfectly common-sense way of looking at the policy to me. In any case, it does specify that multiple sources are preferred. This is not a particularly mainstream news source, so to rely solely on it would be an extremely silly interpretation. Brilliantine (talk) 04:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete - we have two copies of a press release and a church newsletter. This is supposed to be a significant international law firm. Where's the coverage in the legal press? Reports of cases won and lost? Significant law firms are usually more visible than this. They have 45 hits in Google, but most of them are that same press release. This looks like advertising. --John Nagle (talk) 04:33, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment "Church newsletter", huh? Besides from the fact that the Jewish News Weekly is most certainly not a "church" it also is not a newsletter but rather a real press. Bstone (talk) 13:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  14:08, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  14:09, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination. An eleven-lawyer law firm practicing US law while physically located in Israel, apparently.  Attempts to bootstrap itself into notability by declaring itself to be "part of a trend." - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:17, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment It was the independent press which described it as "part of the trend" and the press makes it survive the notability test. Bstone (talk) 18:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete- I remain unconvinced of notability. Besides the press releases there's only one source, and I'd expect a notable law firm to make a bigger splash in the news than this. Reyk  YO!  20:41, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:N does not require multiple sources in independent press in order to establish notability. This firm has press in an independent source and thus it quite easily passes the notability test. Bstone (talk) 22:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete: per nom and Smerdis. This is a bunch of press releases and self-promotional bits about a law firm that according to its own press releases is less than two months old.    RGTraynor  20:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment While there is one press release cited there is also an article firmly establishing notability in independent press. Thus, it passes the notability and reliable source test quite easily. Bstone (talk) 22:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * By your (in my opinion) rather eccentric interpretation of the notability criteria, there could be an article about pretty much anything. I hope you're not offended, but I do have to ask: Do you have a conflict of interest here? Brilliantine (talk) 22:16, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * How can I, an EMT who lives in Boston, have an conflict of interest with a law firm in Israel? Do you always suspect a WP:COI whenever you have differing opinions with people? Please remember to assume good faith about contributors. Bstone (talk) 23:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I was only asking on the off-chance, as you created the article and have been defending it very consistently on here. It is possible for people to have conflicts of interests relating people or things in different locations - through family, friends etc - this is common sense. As you can see from my contribs, this is the only AFD I have commented on for which I have even considered the possibility that there might be a WP:COI involved. Lastly, a conflict of interest does not necessarily constitute bad faith. I am not questioning your good faith - I was merely enquiring. Brilliantine (talk) 00:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete as non-notable. One source is not enough IMO - especially given the fairly niche focus of it (presumably the north Californian Jewish community). My take on the notability guidelines is to require multiple sources unless the single source is really exceptional, as having a single source might be a "fluke", whereas multiple sources helps to establish a pattern. Silverfish (talk) 23:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - a single news article is insufficient to establish notability. The only other substantial coverage are all press releases. -- Whpq (talk) 20:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - The article's subject simply does not rise to the level of being "notable." A few press release describing the firm, but no secondary sources detailing accomplishments.  This is not an attack on the writer, merely an opinion based on the article itself, and the sources supporting it.Yachtsman1 (talk) 04:32, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete No evidence or even assertion of any actual accomplishments. Founding a firm does not make it notable, nor does suiccess in getting an announcement of the fact in the press. DGG (talk) 02:21, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Like others I agree with the WP:NOT statement 'Multiple sources are generally preferred'. This is especially true for businesses where a notable company should be able to provide plenty of press coverage. The single source in local/regional press does not convince me that this company is notable. Nuttah (talk) 06:47, 13 September 2008 (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.