Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vella & Pratt


 * 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. v/r - TP 03:31, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Vella & Pratt

 * – ( View AfD View log )

IP Contested PROD (without reason) of a promotional article on an non-notable law firm - fails WP:GNG and/or WP:CORP Mt  king  (edits)  02:53, 2 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Did a search of the law firm and found it was not notable. Very little information. Standard issue, CSD? Jab843 (talk) 03:21, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Contest is reasonable. Article contains published research in connection with R.R.K. that serves as prima facie of worthy attention, i.e. notability. Improvements should be made on the literature in the law journals that were referenced ?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.193.139.58 (talk • contribs) 06:54, 2 December 2011‎ (UTC)
 * CSD is the abbreviation of "Criteria for Speedy Deletion". Of course there are no relevances between CSD and AfD, so no need to deny nomination! ● Mehran Debate● 11:44, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 2 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete One or two brief mentions in reliable sources doesn't establish notability. Nwlaw63 (talk) 20:53, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Sources do in fact provide significant coverage of the issues regarding RRK and IBM. Easily found online.--130.15.173.89 (talk) 01:35, 7 December 2011 (UTC) — 130.15.173.89 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment: That doesn't make the surviving law firm notable. WP:NOTINHERITED.  PK  T (alk)  23:22, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sprinting faster (talk) 15:47, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. I appreciate we are very, very, very soft on law firms generally, but I can't see a reason for keeping a law firm with a total of 80 staff (and, unless I am missing something, only three lawyers? Two of which seem to be father-and-son) specialising in a non-controversial commercial field (construction and labour).  To be honest, I'd put it down as a Speedy, but I'll just express my view as a Delete for now. --Legis (talk - contribs) 05:30, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Non-notable. Google News Archive finds literally nothing. References provided at the article are mostly about the firm's predecessor, Kennedy & Associates. As noted by Legis, this appears to be a three-lawyer firm: the founding partners and one of their sons. --MelanieN (talk) 18:19, 17 December 2011 (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.