Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World Law Group


 * 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. ST47 (talk) 03:22, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

World Law Group

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

unable to verify. it list all these org but there were no report. there is one report on federal website, which mentioned it as a scam, which... https://www.consumerfinance.gov/about-us/newsroom/cfpb-sues-world-law-group-for-charging-illegal-fees-and-making-false-promises-in-debt-relief-scheme/ Viztor (talk) 19:43, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:57, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete While some member firms maybe be notable, that's not INHERITED. Best sourcing I could find was this brief mention in the New York Times from 1989 - which initially was promising give the age of the consortium. However I could find little else that wasn't self-published and nothing that comes close to the standard of multiple reliable independent secondary sources with substantial coverage as per NCORP. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:00, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Law firm network lists the WLG as the globally 4th largest network with the numbers of lawyers obviously being outdated - the network article lists 10000, legal 500 mentions over 18000. WP has articles about other similar - even smaller - networks (Alliott Group, Lex Mundi, ALFA International, WSG - World Services Group, Meritas (law), Multilaw, Pacific Rim Advisory Council. It is unjustified to single out the WLG because of a relatively small visibility when it marshals such a number of professionals. By their very nature, law firms and thus their associations might just act a little more seclusively than other, more flashy industries. The power of transnationality cannot be underestimated, especially when it comes to resolving legal cases in the globalized industry, thus, networks of global players are more than the sum of their parts. At best, such a deletion proposal could serve as a reason to believe that someone tries to guard their secrecy, at worst we would have an example of an "it appears beyond us, so let's not bother to mention it" attitude. -- Kku (talk) 05:42, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS...? Moaz786 (talk to me or see what I've been doing) 21:56, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Viztor (talk) 02:48, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:44, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:44, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   17:33, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. I don't see any significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, as required by WP:GNG. Kku writes "It is unjustified to single out the WLG because of a relatively small visibility"; but "relatively small visibility" here means that it's not gotten any coverage to support a claim of notability. Wikipedia should not be the place that provides that coverage; that's not its role.
 * As an aside, the lawsuit and settlement with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau appears to be with a entirely different entity. TJRC (talk) 20:34, 24 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete Captain Raju, Barkeeper49, and TJRC make excellent points.A.Jacobin (talk) 14:51, 27 June 2019 (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.