Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Smith Haughey Rice & Roegge


 * 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. Tone 21:38, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Smith Haughey Rice & Roegge
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)


 * A page of this name was deleted twice before as db-spam. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 17:15, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Could you please provide the reason why this page should be deleted? Phil Bridger (talk) 13:58, 1 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete A search yields no real media coverage, and most of what turns up are the typical Yellow Page-type listings. The article itself supplies no links indicating notability. Even within the references to "best law firm in XYZ practice area," a review of the listed website references is not clear that those rankings having been given (one site indicates that the firm is "recommended" but that others are "highly recommended; another site doesn't even list the firm). Even if the firm was #1 in Traverse City, etc, is that really grounds for meeting WP:N? I don't believe so. Transmissionelement (talk) 16:28, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. It would have been better if the nominator could have given a proper deletion rationale, but as he hasn't then I will say that this should be deleted for lack of notability. I would expect a truly notable American law firm established for nearly 70 years to come up with at least a paragraph or two of coverage in a Google Books search, but that search linked above doesn't come up with any more than directory listings. A lower standard of notability would be provided by Google News results, but even they, excluding court reports, which are primary sources, don't come up with any more than routine notices of appointments in Michigan Lawyers Weekly and other passing references in local newspapers. There's nothing here that could be called significant coverage of the firm itself. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:06, 3 November 2009 (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.