Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ince Gordon Dadds

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|1=Ince Gordon Dadds}} – (View AfDView log | edits since nomination)

:({{Find sources AFD|title=Ince Gordon Dadds}})

Insufficient independent coverage for example newspapers, books etc and weak coverage by unreliable sources like press releases. Doubt over wether or not the company is notable, as whilst they bring in plenty of revenue, there’s not much media coverage to demonstrate they are different from the average law firm.

Previously COI tagged after a number of suspicious users where spotted editing the article, including one with the same name as the company. COI tag removed by another editor despite not making significant edits, so COI tag has since been restored as an ongoing issue. GeekBurst (talk) 00:16, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Companies, and United Kingdom. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:49, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
• Please note that the name of the firm has changed to "The Ince Group", so you may have been searching for the wrong firm name. I've now changed it in the article, but assuming the article is kept, we'll need to move it. There is a lot of interest in it as one of the few listed (publicly traded) law firms, so you should be able to find plenty of coverage about it as an entity, from independent reliable sources. I can't find exactly where else this was discussed, but generally lawyers and law firm staff tend to be clued up about conflict of interest issues, so it seems likely that the COI editors are young interns or new hires before they join. In any case anyone actually affiliated with the firm probably would have gotten the firm name right, at least. The article is in terrible shape with outdated information and definitely needs a proper update. Cielquiparle (talk) 10:31, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
• :A lot of coverage for The Ince Group plc is press releases, primarily discussing business profits rather than that day to day operation, which alone wouldn’t qualify the business as notable. GeekBurst (talk) 22:51, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
• ::That's true but there is also a lot that goes beyond that. Do you have access to Wikipedia Library? I'll come back and help you out in a bit. Cielquiparle (talk) 07:04, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:39, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

• Keep easily meets WP:GNG via substantial news coverage in trade publications, such as Law.com [https://www.law.com/international-edition/2022/05/23/ince-blames-cyber-attack-and-ukraine-war-for-dip-in-revenue/] [https://www.law.com/international-edition/2021/10/26/ince-group-acquires-its-own-corporate-adviser-for-10m/] [https://www.law.com/international-edition/2019/03/14/in-hong-kong-ince-co-adds-three-partners-expects-combination-with-gordon-dadds/] and Legal Cheek [https://www.legalcheek.com/2021/12/ince-boosts-junior-lawyer-pay-by-over-a-quarter-to-90k/]. The firm is also profiled in authoritative industry rankings, such as The Legal 500 [https://www.legal500.com/c/london/transport/shipping/] [https://www.legal500.com/c/hong-kong/shipping/] and Chambers and Partners [https://chambers.com/department/ince-shipping-finance-asia-pacific-8:186:16084:1:208]. feminist (talk) 08:19, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
• :Unfortunately Law.com & LegalCheek articles do not meet the criteria for ‘independent coverage of subject’ & the simple inclusion of a business on a listicle such as those seen at The Legal 500 & Chambers and Partners fails both significance and independence. Please keep in mind a business simply been mentioned in multiple sources doesn’t make it notable, particularly when those sources fail to support the GNG criteria. GeekBurst (talk) 23:51, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
• ::The Law.com and Legal Cheek articles I linked are all independent of the subject (none of them are sponsored) and are all non-trivial coverage focusing on the {{tq|day to day operation}} of the firm, going beyond a passing mention. I don't see the issue here. feminist (talk) 05:48, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
• :::Yes and no. The Law.com (aka American Lawyer Media International edition) articles are generally OK for establishing notability, if they go beyond regurgitating press releases, which these do (and as with any source, we use them with care in citing them). LegalCheek, however, does not qualify because it's more of an industry gossip and news site, much like Above the Law in the US (which is also very informative but insider gossip-driven). It doesn't mean we shouldn't read LegalCheek and Above the Law while doing background research; it just means we always need to hunt for more reliable sources to back up any facts and cite those sources instead. Cielquiparle (talk) 10:11, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
• ::And even if I just look at the nominated article in its current state, it cites sources like the Times, the Law Society Gazette and Legal Business – what's the issue with these sources? feminist (talk) 05:51, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
• :::Law Society Gazette is produced by The Law Society of England and Wales which is an industry association and therefore can’t be accepted as independent of the subject per GNG. GeekBurst (talk) 15:01, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
• ::::Good point. I've struck Law Society Gazette from my comment below. Cielquiparle (talk) 07:18, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
• Speedy keep as in reading the article as it stands now, there is more than enough evidence for notability, with substantial coverage from independent reliable sources including legal industry publications such as The Lawyer, Legal Business, The Law Society Gazette, The Global Legal Post, and Legal Futures, and national newspapers such as The Times and The Daily Telegraph, and city newspapers such as The Evening Standard and City AM. (Prior commenter also identified additional coverage establishing notability which currently isn't cited in the article, from publications such as Law.com (American Lawyer Media).) While some of these publications are difficult to access, many of them are not, and in any case their existence should have been identified during the WP:BEFORE step prior to submitting to AfD. I would highly recommend that the nominator work toward Wikipedia Library access, as it will make research on business topics much easier, and we definitely need more editors who are interested in helping to create high-quality business and organisation-related content on Wikipedia. I also appreciate the nominator's frustration with the past COI editors, but in cases like this where there seems to be some coverage but you're not sure how to fix it, I would advise posting a notice to the relevant WikiProject Talk pages asking for input and help from others, rather than using AfD to fix WP:SURMOUNTABLE problems. Cielquiparle (talk) 10:48, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
• Keep as it meets notability criteria and reliable sources requirement. --2A01:C22:7231:3800:DC94:D85A:E399:69DE (talk) 11:48, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.