Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Warner Norcross & Judd


 * 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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:51, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Warner Norcross &
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

fails WP:CORP. although it has existed for several decades, I could not find any significant coverage. only coverage like confirming certain people were partners of the firm. but nothing indepth. it also looks like an WP:ADVERT LibStar (talk) 23:45, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  Jinkinson   talk to me  00:18, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.  Jinkinson   talk to me  00:18, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions.  Jinkinson   talk to me  00:18, 12 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep as passing my standards. Bearian (talk) 15:59, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * please provide sources that establish notability. LibStar (talk) 21:44, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. Subject meets notability through the existence of significant coverage in reliable and independent sources. (WP:BEFORE) Best regards, Cindy  ( talk ) 04:17, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * please provide these evidence of sources. LibStar (talk) 05:10, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Prior to nominating this article for deletion, did you look for sources through books and news? If so, what did you find there? Cindy  ( talk ) 05:33, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Please read my nomination I undertook a search and found coverage like confirming partners of the firm but nothing in-depth. Please provide evidence of sources you have found. LibStar (talk) 08:56, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Please see here and here. Bearian (talk) 20:06, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * P.S. A search of Google patents finds literally hundreds of successful patents they've handled. Bearian (talk) 20:07, 17 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. A firm with 220 professionals is going to be notable;  adequate coverage in RS can be found. -- do  ncr  am  21:05, 17 March 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.