Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/S. Horowitz & Co.


 * 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. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:27, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

S. Horowitz & Co.

 * - (View AfD) (View log)

Fails WP:CORP, possibly WP:SPAM, only assertion of notability is via WP:WEASEL words ("...one of the largest...") with no reliable sources to attempt WP:V. ju66l3r 22:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment A reliable source comfirming "the third larges law firm in Israel" that establishes WP:V was easily found. . --Oakshade 05:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep If you read the profile, than you can see that the minimal info provided is verifiable. As for the good faith, a little homework would show that Horowitz is indeed one of the oldest and largest law firms in Israel and that itself is quite notable. Compared to the major western countries, Horowitz is a small local firm, but in Israel it is significant. --Shuki 23:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No WP:RS providing any of the criteria for WP:CORP...and none that I could find in a brief google search that weren't press releases and other PR from the firm itself. Please point to how it meets WP:CORP.  ju66l3r 00:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

*Delete Single sourced, its own company profile handout. Article does not assert any notability to the company. Per nom, does not meet WP:CORP guidelines and other verification issues. Borderline spam. --Eqdoktor 08:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, no asertion of notability and no verifiable sources. Doesn't meet WP:CORP by a long shot.  A google search ("S Horowitz & Co") reveals just around 500 links, but they appear to be nothing more than listings.  --Dennisthe2 00:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Article has been much improved. All it needed was some effort to establish notability and track down the external refs and cites. Still needs more work but is now a viable stub. Israel's third largest law firm, ranked as the leading Israeli recommendation by a lawyer trade magazine guidebook. It is also Israel's rep in the Lex Mundi organization. Notable enough (and with refs) for me --Eqdoktor 08:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletions.  - crz crztalk 16:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable law firm. Wikipedia is not a business directory. --Edcolins 23:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Abstain. 3rd largest law firm in Israel makes me hesitate. --Edcolins 20:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Is there a double standard on WP: How about Bingham McCutchen for one? If this goes, than shouldn't all other articles listed in law-firm-stub be nomnated for Afd s well? --Shuki 21:13, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No. Bingham McCutchen has been recognized 3 consecutive years by Fortune magazine for its work environment as one of the best companies to work for.  It was also recognized by Boston Business Journal and the San Francisco Chronicle.  While these references were not included in the article originally, they do show notability (i.e., recognition by multiple independent news sources).  I have not found the same notability for this law firm.  ju66l3r 18:21, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Well it's unfortunate that you don't search in Hebrew, or care to accept the two widely-accepted Israel ratings companies based on your lack of knowledge and language skills. --Shuki 22:01, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Fine. Search in Hebrew, but put the information you find in the article or at the very least in this AfD.  Claiming to have found something of import to establishing notability in another language and providing that information to actually establish notability are two different things.  As for the "widely-accepted" ratings, you'll have to establish that "fact" as well too.  It's not my lack of knowledge that's the problem here, it is the lack of evidence.  ju66l3r 05:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - 3rd largest law firm in Israel, which is notable. . --Oakshade 05:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment: I question the use of a "size" ranking index to validate notability.  Imagine a situation where every company in a category is ranked by size and listed in an index.  If 200 firms exist, then even the 182nd largest company is listed in the index and therefore meets WP:CORP under this interpretation, even if the size of the company is 10 staff.  Is size of a company notable?  Maybe this is more necessary for clarification on the WP:CORP talk page than this AfD, but when the only thing notable about a law firm is "it hires more lawyers than all but 2 others in Israel", then is it still notable?  Surely, the #3 biggest law firm in all of Israel has done something to warrant better notability than that.  The thing is that I can't find it.  ju66l3r 21:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Israel has over 7 million people in it. As the Jerusalem Post article suggests, Israel is saturated in lawyers (with 33,000 lawyers, there is alot more than 200 law firms in Israel; I'm guessing several thousand). Just the mere scope of a law firm being in the top 20 in such a country is inherently notable. --Oakshade 22:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * If the #1 largest law firm had 26,000 lawyers, the #2 largest law firm had 5,000 lawyers, and the #3 largest law firm had 900 lawyers (the remaining 100 lawyers spread among #4-#whatever), then you could make an argument that #1 was notable based upon size alone, but that 900 pales in comparison and is therefore less notable (if not completely un-notable based solely on size). This is clearly not the case, but gives an example why size ranking alone is hardly a hearty criteria for notability.  Even when companies are recognized by independent reliable sources, we sometimes require multiple recognition as such for notability.  To hinge keeping an article solely on a very loose interpretation of WP:CORP criterion #2 (ranking indices) is not in accordance with the guidelines of Wikipedia.  This is about as clear as I can make it in stating this argument, so I will probably refrain from any further comment on it.  ju66l3r 00:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * That argument makes no sense. "If the #1 largest law firm had 26,000 lawyers..." is not based in fact.  In fact, the #1 law firm in Israel, Herzog, Fox, Neeman & Co., has 100 employees and 34 partners.  That is huge for a law firm.  The #10 firm, Fischer, Behar, Chen, Well, Orion & Co., has just over 100.  These are very signifficant in a country of just over 7,000,000 and well past the threshold of scope for notable law firms. --Oakshade 03:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - I just noticed there is a recent string of Israeli law firms and lawyers up for AfD and all of them have come from either User:Ju66l3r or User:Edcolins and with one exception, all of them include votes by one or the other, depending on who created the AfD. They include Articles for deletion/Yigal Arnon, Articles for deletion/Hamburger Evron & Co., Articles for deletion/Pearl Cohen Zedek Latzer, Articles for deletion/Eitan Law Group and this one.  I find this very troubling possible vote stacking.  At User talk:Ju66l3r, there is actual discussion between the two in deleting ALL Category:Law firms in Israel articles!  I won't charge an anti-israeli POV, but with all the anti-Semitism I've encountered recently in Wikipedia, I'm very disturbed that law firms or lawyers from this country are singled out for deletion. --Oakshade 23:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * ''Response on discussion talk page to avoid derailment of discussion of article. ju66l3r 00:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment This came up at WP:ANI and it looks like the bias allegation is well-intentioned but groundless. I'm glad some Wikipedians watch out for that kind of misuse.  This nomination appears to be based upon policy without any unseemly taint.  Durova Charge 02:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Sufficient local notability. Needs expansion, though. Caknuck 01:45, 20 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.