Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Levin & Perconti

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 not notable. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 12:20, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Levin & Perconti

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

Not notable. All references are trivial quotes in news articles about cases in which they were involved; the news articles are about the victims and their cases. No independent coverage of this firm. Nothing better found in searching, except this one [[1]] which isn't enough on its own. MB (talk) 18:19, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Agreed. I was cleaning up the article prior to nominate here at AfD (to help people identify the notability and promo issues more easily) but it looks like you beat me to the punch. Clearly fails WP:GNG. Chrisw80 (talk) 18:31, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I noticeably found nothing better and I should note I also planned either PROD or AfD, or both if necessary. Simply none of is imaginably better for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 18:35, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 18:35, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 18:35, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 18:35, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 18:35, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject lacks independent coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 18:38, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As above, fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:09, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Apparently non-notable firm, fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP. Article probably promotional in intent. I could find nothing better on a search. Delete as per the various views above. DES ^(talk) 23:01, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Noting that without the promotional material, there is little left. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 11:47, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only 22 lawyers and no significant cases. Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP. Edwardx (talk) 13:35, 13 April 2016 (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.