Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rollits 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 no consensus. (Non-administrator closure.) NorthAmerica1000 11:38, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Rollits LLP

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Advertising and not notable. Nothing distinctive about this law firm. Philafrenzy (talk) 23:38, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Keep - with 60 attorneys, and being over 150 years old, this passes my standards. Bearian (talk) 20:47, 30 January 2014 (UTC) 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000(talk) 05:50, 6 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete Notability of a law firm shouldn't be automatic nor any different from other companies. I've looked for useful sources and there are none that establish sufficient notability to meet WP:CORP. This was the best I could find. SmartSE (talk) 20:16, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - Added cite. It would be odd if a 170+ year old firm didn't have a large number of non-web cites available.  Has enough cites currently in order to not be deleted. VMS Mosaic (talk) 08:12, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * As in WP:MUSTBESOURCES? The cite you added doesn't demonstrate notability, and those already cited are trivial mentions in low-quality sources. I'm cutting the blatantly promotional content about charity events (which companies don't do this?). SmartSE (talk)
 * The firm has a separate charity law section, so their support of charities might be notable. I added more cites supporting some of the listed law sections and a little of the history. My point was that the available print references could only be found by someone willing to dig into archives of 1800s and 1900s newspapers, books, etc. Per WP:NTEMP, if the firm would have passed WP:GNG during any one of the 170+ years, then it passes WP:GNG today. VMS Mosaic (talk) 06:13, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Very weak keep – but only if all unreferenced stuff (which is virtually everything and still with much promo) and living non-notable people are removed, which would reduce it to a short stub. I concur with SmartSE's WP:MUSTBESOURCES here, which would apply to all statements in the article. In reply to Bearian's "being over 150 years old" (above), the law firm example given through a nav-through provides verified reliable evidence for all statements – this article doesn't. The problem with articles such as this, with few to no sources to prove notability in Wikipedia terms, is that if it is kept, a whole load more promo and uncited stuff will ride in on its saddle. I have removed the wikilink to the wrong Joseph Kaye – cricketer, not builder. Acabashi (talk) 14:52, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Which currently living people are you referring to? It is standard practice to include the top level people in the Infobox especially if properly cited as done here. Hoovers is explicitly noted as a suitable source by WP:LISTED.VMS Mosaic (talk) 05:35, 8 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong | confer _ 05:07, 18 February 2014 (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.