Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Burges Salmon

:{{la|Burges Salmon}} ([{{fullurl:Burges Salmon|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Burges Salmon}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

Article was originally written by someone affiliated with the company and doesn't appear to be notable. Contested prod and speedy.Sandor Clegane (talk) 17:17, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

• Keep A [http://news.google.com/archivesearch?um=1&ned=us&hl=en&q=%22Burges+Salmon%22&cf=all Google News Archive search] returns a multitude of reliable sources, proving that this company passes WP:CORP. Cunard (talk) 17:56, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
• Weak delete. First of all, the article asserts its own lack of notability ("43rd largest law firm, by revenue, in the UK"); wikipedia is not a directory of companies. As for the Google news results, they fall into roughly three categories: (1) entries in trade publications, especially Legalweek, which establish verifiability but not necessarily notability; (2) mentions in mainstream media, as you'd expect for any law firm above a particular size, the stories are about the cases, not the firm, and (3) [http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article4641179.ece at least one story] that is genuinely about the fim and in a mainstream publication, but is ignored by the wikipedia entry, possibly because it's not flattering. I think this last article might establish notability, but it has to be folded into the article. Hairhorn (talk) 18:26, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

---

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 00:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 00:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete 43th? What is being notable?
• Delete. I think notability stops at #40. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:12, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
• Strong keep Notable. Sources are available for sizable and historic law firm. Size isn't the end all be all. I'd be okay with removing mention of it's ranking... ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:24, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete given that the magic circle of British law firms have expanded into multinational organizations, this firm is very small by comparison. I am troubled that someone affiliated with the company started the article. Racepacket (talk) 16:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
• Weak keep as per the arguments of Hairhorn, though he reasoned weak delete on same gounds. COI concerns are valid here and are best addressed with reducing article to stub, with an expectation that notability can be established. We cannot include anything but the briefest mention of the accusations put forward in Hairhorn's RS in the article, it's too biased, it might be enough just for pass for the moment. Power.corrupts (talk) 21:38, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• Keep It's notable, one of the UK's big firms and is historical. Conflict aside the article can be fixed with some attention from independant editors. Nja²⁴⁷ 20:03, 15 June 2009 (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.