Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trilegal - Wikipedia

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 keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:07, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trilegal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

After numerous battles with the editor in trying to establish notability and reliable references, I do not believe that this company is worth inclusion in this encyclopedia. Most of the references provided are about a person who is associated with the company, and not the company itself; or, the articles are about Allen & Overy, apparently in some attempt to inherit notability from that company. Basically, the article does not establish why the company is notable; it simply states that the company exists, and that it entered into an agreement with another company. Why is this significant? Reference #5 may indicate mild importance, but overall this appears to be just another law firm, as lots of firms win little awards here and there. — Timneu22 · talk 10:56, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.
• Delete per nomination. Article is about a law firm. Claims to notability all come through inclusion in Top 500 lists and the like, which serve only promotional purposes and do not confer notability on each business listed. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:46, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "Article is about a law firm" - you speak as if that in itself warrants deletion. :) There are other sources apart from the Legal500 link. Telco (talk) 16:56, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. As the creator of the article I am opposed to the deletion of the page. There are multiple, reliable, independent secondary sources available for the article including the Economic Times, LiveMint, OneIndia News, Moneycontrol among others including Legal 500, which for some reason the nominator does not consider to be a reliable source of information (Alexa rankings). The firm has been ranked as one of the top 10 firms of the Asia-Pacific by Mergermarket which is a part of the Financial Times Group. I would also like to point out that the Bar Council of India prohibits firms from soliciting clients in any manner and therefore most law firms based in India are media-shy and do not have functional websites, and I believe that this augments the systemic bias that already exists on this project. If this encyclopedia can accept pokemon cruft, I think Indian law firms pass the threshold for inclusion. Please note that if you check the Economic Times and Livemint articles you will find that it is "Trilegal", the Indian law firm, as the subject of discussion and not Allen & Overy. Telco (talk) 16:51, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• To be honest, I am quite tired of Timneu's belligerant behaviour since the beginning. He has been quite persistent in trying to get this article deleted and in the course of his operation he has constantly reverted my edits without discussion. For those who are interested in reviewing the matter, are welcome to view my talk page, Timneu22's talk page and the talk page of the article. Telco (talk) 17:15, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note that this user has few or no other edits outside this one article. — Timneu22 · talk 19:33, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks Timneu. I hope you understand that my being a SPA does not really concern the notability of the subject. Telco (talk) 20:19, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• This is not the forum for such a discussion. And as anyone can see, I tried to help you from the first moments, advising that you USERFY the page and get other editors. You did not, and you just posted it, despite my numerous requests to get other people to review it. Now other people are reviewing it, and it seems they also think the article should be deleted. — Timneu22 · talk 19:31, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Notability has been demonstrate in the article in the standard way, by means of references to significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:09, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you explain which coverage, exactly, was written about the company itself? — Timneu22 · talk 14:14, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • [1][2][3][4] Phil Bridger (talk) 14:20, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Maybe 1 and 2, not so much 3 and 4. — Timneu22 · talk 14:24, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The sources provided seem quite adequate. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:31, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: While this may just seem like an article I don't like, can someone please explain to me why this isn't just another law firm? There's nothing significant here, period. — Timneu22 · talk 12:19, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.