Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Weingarten, Schurgin, Gagnebin & Lebovici


 * 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 of the debate was Keep Computerjoe 's talk 20:50, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Weingarten, Schurgin, Gagnebin & Lebovici
322 hits on Yahoo -- not really very notable, I'd think &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  00:06, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep 9,300 hits on Google and they clearly have a significant patent portfolio. Whatever side you are on in the Intellectual Property debate, patent law firms like these are significant players and this one seems notable. Article needs an tag, though. Gw e rnol 00:50, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep as above. I've added expand tag. Tyrenius 01:55, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. We've got junk like Wolfram and Hart, so we might as well have real law firms.  The question is, are they as notable as Eaton, Dixon, Butts, and Lovinette or Winer, Diner, and Sixtyniner? Brian G. Crawford 03:00, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. They do seem notable enough. But is it & Lebovici or & Hayes? Jude (talk,contribs,email) 05:24, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete There's no need to give every law firm a wikipedia article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.170.224.208 (talk • contribs)
 * Keep apparently notable firm of sharks lawyers. Just zis Guy you know? 13:16, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. 13,500 hits on Google. It is now "& Lebovici", formerly " & Hayes." Willing to expand, but didn't find specifics in expansion request. Suggestions? User:Jlancaster (talk) 10:16, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand, notable firm. --Ter e nce Ong 14:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - no assertion of notability other than high Google hits. "xxx was the firm that defended such and such celebrity in high profile case" might be different. The JPS   talk to me  16:03, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep--they're no Dewey, Cheetham, and Howe, but I think they meet notability standards. -- stubblyh ea d | T/c 16:13, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep notable enough. Wikipedia is not paper. - Pureblade  | Θ 18:34, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep NOTABLE: Won $55 M infringement case for the little guy, GTA, versus industrial giant Conoco in May, 2000. User:Jlancaster (talk) 23:09, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete I personally think its not a good idea to begin adding tons of law firms into Wikipedia, as we can have tens of thousands of pages if having a law degree is a sole qualification for entry into an encyclopedia.  As for this article, it does not demonstrate any form of notability which I think deserves inclusion. --Ataricodfish 03:28, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete law firm of no particular significance. Robin Johnson 11:05, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Lawyercruft. KleenupKrew 22:59, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep (yes, from me) While I'm not fond of lawyers, they have the abovementioned Conoco case, plus a portfolio of patents. There are certainly less notable groups that are listed. ~Kylu ( u | t )  03:29, 13 May 2006 (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.