Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cains (law firm)

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 no consensus to delete, default to keep. Sandstein (talk) 11:48, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cains (law firm)

I've seen the discussion on Talk:Cains (law firm) re: an attempt to source but I agree with the original PROD. While I don't think it's blatant spam, there doesn't appear to be any coverage indicating that this law firm is in any way notable per WP:CORP Travellingcari (talk) 02:46, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm inclined to agree. Seems to be a good law firm but there are lots of good law firms which aren't inherently notable. We are not a business directory. Gatoclass (talk) 04:05, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - I agree. Wikipedia are not a business directory. But... retain this article if neutral? OAS ^{talk to me} —Preceding comment was added at 11:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. According to Legalweek.com (a reliable source?) the firm is an "offshore heavyweight." --brew crewer (yada, yada) 15:44, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to both Brewcrewer and OAS. OAS, It's not the neutrality that's the issue but whether they're notable enough -- have they done anything worthy of inclusion? Brew, I saw that but it isn't clear what an offshore heavyweight is, at least from what I read. What's the criteria? Anyone could be called that, but there's no info on what they've done to earn that title. Make sense? Travellingcari (talk) 15:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply. Yes, but if a reliable source calls them a "heavyweight" then ipso facto they might be notable. It's not our business to decide the title's truth or merits. We are here to figure out the firm's notability.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 15:59, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply I agree, and perhaps I have a bias having worked in marketing (and the legal field, but not legal marketing) but that sounds like marketing speak. The article doesn't mention that "Cains is an offshore heavyweight due to its work on....." it just refers to them as such with no back-up. In my opinion, and I could be wrong, that's right up there with someone posting an article that says "Brewcrewer (or Travellingcari) is a wonderful influential person..." to that I'd flag WP-BIO if there was no assertion of what we'd done to warrant it. Make sense? Might not as I've had no sleep but that's where I'm coming from. Travellingcari (talk) 16:09, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Reply. If someone posts an article that says "Travellingcari is an influental person" and provides a reliabe source that states so in a non-trivial manner, then the article should in no way be speedily deleted. It doesn't make a difference what the basis or truthfullness is. We are dealing with notability, and substantial coverage by reliable sources makes someone notable. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 16:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yes, but "offshore heavyweight" is a relative term. Just how many British legal firms are "offshore"? Half a dozen? We don't know. So this doesn't seem a very impressive endorsement to me. Gatoclass (talk) 17:41, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I wasn't terribly impressed either, that's why I !voted "Weak." --brew crewer (yada, yada) 17:47, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Reply thanks! I read comment of all of you and reconsidered it. result, not a notable this firm. I agree to deletion. done. OAS ^{talk to me} 10:19, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I never said it should be speedy, that's why I put it here and didn't tag it as {{db-spam}}. As I said in the nom, I don't think it's blatant spam, I just don't think it's notable because the reliable sources doesn't explain why they're a heavyweight, therefore it is trivial in my book. But that's just one opinion. Travellingcari (talk) 19:09, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Disclosure of interest - I created the article as part of a series of articles I was creating on offshore law firms (see for example Offshore magic circle, Maples and Calder, Conyers Dill & Pearman and Harney Westwood & Riegels. Offshore law firms are not more notable than any other, but they do tend to be the largest and most important law firms in their respective countries. By the same token that Spanish Town in the British Virgin Islands, a town of 2,000 souls, would be completely non-notable in a larger state, in a small country it is the second largest metropolois and things attain a larger importance only because they exert a larger (even dominant) influence over their respective coutries. These law firms play a dominant role in the economies of the offshore financial centres that they are based in. I accept that I have never developed the article beyond the initial stub. Just for the record, I don't work for Cains and never have - definitely not intended as spam. --Legis (talk - contribs) 23:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It may be the case that they are important to these economies, but that's not a reason to have articles about the individual companies. Rather, there should just be a line or two about the importance of these firms to the local economy in the article about the location itself. Gatoclass (talk) 00:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY ^talk _contribs 03:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There is nothing in the article to foster much confidence. It's the oldest firm on an island? Once we start that, we get to "oldest 7/11 in Northfield Minnesota." We need something more, something that indicates that the firm achieves note within the field of law practices. Utgard Loki (talk) 17:22, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Man is not exactly just an island in pertinent respects: given its freedom from UK taxes, it's a major off-shore haven and this firm is a specialist in the topic. I'd like a little more specifics than "one of the largest and oldest." It's what relative size exactly? We use market share a a factor for companies. And there should be some actual 3rd party substantial article about it somewhere. Has anyone looked for print sources? The British Legal Awards are probably significant, but 2007 is the first year they have been awarded. [1]. The sponsorship however is quite impressive. [2] DGG (talk) 03:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I think finding them has been the issue, finding them and being substantive. I checked US databases as they're what I have access to thinking the firm would get a mention if it were that significant, but it may be too niche. Some are aware of the Isle of Man tax situation but it's not as if it's on the scale of say, Switzerland or certain island in the Caribbean where a firm would be involved in worldwide matters, if that makes sense. Travellingcari (talk) 04:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Gavin Collins (talk) 10:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the article has insufficient content, context, analayis or reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability. I don't think the sources cited in the article are sufficient; listings in directories and industry awards fall short of the requirements of WP:CORP where the coverage is trivial; these sources provide little to nothing about the firm, its size, turnover or notable court cases. --Gavin Collins (talk) 11:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A law firm like that is very important to a local economy and business culture, so knowing about it is part of an encyclopedic understanding of the subject. There do seem to be a few sources out there in publications about law and the law business describing the firm's business activities, e.g. opening a London office. Wikidemo (talk) 15:52, 12 February 2008 (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.