Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Blanch Law Firm

:{{la|The Blanch Law Firm}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Blanch_Law_Firm Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|The Blanch Law Firm}})

References are to blogs, subject's own site, and passing mentions or brief quotes in articles about other subjects. No evidence of sustained, significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:26, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG with no independent, third-party relaible sources; also fails WP:NCORP, with no WP:CORPDEPTH to the little coverage that does exist. O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 21:31, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. A nothing-special law firm. bd2412 T 14:28, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
• Delete as failing my standards for lawyers. Not all attorneys are, nor are all law firms, notable. I've practiced law for 24 years in NY, and I've never heard of this law firm nor its principal. He's the fourth lawyer quoted in a FOX "news" article, but that's not about him. There is no explanation, either in the sources, nor in the stub, as to why some people might consider him notable -- it is not even wrong -- and thus could be speedily deleted. Attorneys are frequently called by the media to comment on matters of legal news -- I've been quoted twice by the Business Review. So what? WE are not a webhost for lawyers; that's one reason bar associations exist. I note, by the way, that he's not been particularly involved in any bar association(s). Bearian (talk) 18:11, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
• Delete per Bearian. None of the references given satisfy WP:RS. Bradv 21:35, 10 January 2017 (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.