Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wildes & Weinberg

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. postdlf (talk) 01:42, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wildes & Weinberg

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

The lawyers employed by this company, particularly Michael Wildes, certainly seem notable, and there is a depth of coverage from multiple sources. As for the firm he is employed by, I have been unable to find even one reliable source which discusses "Wildes & Weinberg" (not just its lawyers). Their is trivial mention of the firm's name, and the firm does not automatically inherit the notability of those employed by it. Magnolia677 (talk) 01:03, 18 July 2015 (UTC) Magnolia677 (talk) 01:03, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. "Wildes & Weinberg" is mentioned here, here, here, and here, just to list a few sources I found after one search. More importantly though, the firm is notable because of the number of high profile cases it has dealt with, most of which are listed here. Though Michael Wildes is the most famous lawyer at the firm, he doesn't make the firm notable--the cases and clients the firm represents are what makes it notable. Obviously since Michael Wildes is the managing partner, his page lists those cases--but they are really the firms' cases. Much as Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher lists it's notable cases, Wildes & Weinberg should too. Ashershow1_{talk•contribs} 01:45, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The above-mentioned sources only tangentially reference the firm. There is nothing that I see that discusses the firm much less indicate that the firm is notable.--Rpclod (talk) 02:06, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - While I am grateful to User_talk:Ashershow1 for taking the time to provide those external links, I tend to agree with User:Rpclod. I have summarized below the contribution each external link listed above might make to enhancing the notability of the article Wildes & Weinberg:

[1] - This article is an interview with Michael Wildes, a notable partner at the firm. In the article, just three sentences are devoted to the firm--Wildes & Weinberg--the topic of this Wikipedia article. The first sentence is about the range of corporate clients and services; the second and third sentence list the firm's "distinguished clientele".
[2] - The extent of coverage about Wildes & Weinberg in this article is as follows: "Michael Wildes, managing partner of Wildes & Weinberg, a New York City-based immigration law firm, said in an email that some of his clients were losing hope. "Many are hesitating to move forward," he said."
[3] - Wildes & Weinberg is not mentioned once.
[4] - Wildes & Weinberg is not mentioned once. Magnolia677 (talk) 02:23, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any reason why this can't be redirected to Michael Wildes? James500 (talk) 13:44, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:52, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:51, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Some lawyers employed by this lawfirm, particularly Michael Wildes, are notable and have received coverage in multiple reliable sources. As for the firm "Wildes & Weinberg", there are no reliable sources to support notability, and it should not automatically inherit the notability of those employed by it. Magnolia677 (talk) 14:39, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable and reads like a CV. This is not Martindale-Hubbell. Kierzek (talk) 19:40, 2 August 2015 (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.