Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Work Stress Claims


 * 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:00, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Work Stress Claims

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Advertising and not notable. Philafrenzy (talk) 23:33, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I have made some changes for disambiguation pages. Now, Its clean from disambiguation pages with links I think, I would advice to keep this article on Wki. It's useful for wiki Max.Mellor (talk) 16.42, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Neutral point of view that's not right to be revomed.. S.Salman89 (talk) 15.00, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * This is neutral point of view article. It must not be deleted.. Sam.Leach (talk) 21.52, 29 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I am well-familiar about Work stress claims firm. They are the Social worker in the United Kingdom. This page must be on wiki. Isaac.Perkins (talk) 14.44, 29 January 2014 (UTC)


 * As far as I know this page indicate about how they can help people to manage their stress at work. According to me, This type of page should be there-- Sajid.mumbai   ♥  (talk) 13.11, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It looks NPOV article. It should not be deleted CarlA.Rodgers (talk) 11.44, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 29 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Note: User:Sajid.mumbai deleted my comment. This AfD may be subject to a sockpuppet attack. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:39, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete per WP:G11 as unambiguous advertising. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:39, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment It's obvious what type of article this is from the reaction to the nomination, isn't it? Pure unadulterated advertising with not a smidgeon of notability. They are regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority. Perhaps we could get their input on this sort of marketing activity? Philafrenzy (talk) 10:36, 29 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment Road Injury Experts is also connected. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:48, 29 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete: there are no significant third-party sources that confirm the notability of this law firm. A couple of business listing do not prove notability and I am sure these are not the only firm dealing with Work Stress Claims. So, what is special about them; NOTHING. ww2censor (talk) 12:15, 29 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. Take away the bullet list of wikilinks (added as promotionalising list) – take away the See Also section (which does nothing to illuminate this as a company) – take away the 'References' which show the company exists but provide no reliable and useful independent information – take away unreliable Facebook and LinkedIn from Ext Links – take away the promotional second sentence in the lede, and what is left as an article ? &mdash; "Work Stress Claims is the United Kingdom based leading Law firm in Leeds which have been acquired in December 2012 and launched on June 2013." &mdash; this is all we have, and nothing significant seems forthcoming from the 'find sources' above. Not notable per WP:ORGSIG - see note: 'No inherent notability'. Acabashi (talk) 16:42, 29 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Don't Delete I have made necessary changes. I removed promotional link like Facebook and twitter. Now it's looking clean. Please have a look again S.Salman89 (talk) 23.00, 29 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment: Those were not necessary changes and clean does not mean notable. What Acabashi described was by way of illustration to show how little would be left but even then it is still not notable and never will be. ww2censor (talk) 18:03, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * There are additional comments on my talk page. I have asked for further comments to be added here. Philafrenzy (talk) 18:08, 29 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete per nominator, ww2censor and Acabashi. Unambiguous advertising. No real claim to notability compared to umpteen dozens of similar firms in Leeds. Definitely a case of single purpose accounts. Is there anybody else in this firm that would like to create an account? Perhaps we could hear from the cleaners or maybe the manager of the supermarket up the road? Gotta give Tykes credit for trying. Green Giant (talk) 22:06, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * As per my opinion, this article must be on wiki. Ricky.symond (talk) 12:01, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Why? Opinion is not enough, do you have a reason to suggest it is notable plus source to back it up? ww2censor (talk) 19:59, 30 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - this stub badly fails standards for law firms, as well as standards for businesses. This is a faily new firm, and works in a common enough area of law, viz., torts. While stress is a well-accepted concept, as is Occupational stress; however, the quasi-tort of a legal work stess claim is not well esablished.  Just because something exists in the world, does not mean it "must" be on our Wiki. For the users advocating that this is neutral, please read WP:NPOV. Bearian (talk) 20:21, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete because of the obvious WP:MEATPUPPETS. Barney the barney barney (talk) 22:12, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Barney, that is not a valid rationale for deletion. The correct response is to suggest that the closing admin accord less weight, or no weight, to those !votes. James500 (talk) 15:15, 6 February 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.