Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barker Brettell

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. CitiCat ^♫ 23:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Barker Brettell

Barker Brettell (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Non-notable specialized law firm. It has not been the subject of coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. The "notable cases" section does not help to establish notability since a notable case does not necessarily make the lawyer involved notable (a case may be notable by its content or the parties involved, rather than by the lawyers involved). "Ranked top regional" does not make a specialized law firm notable (by the way this is unverified). Finally, the year of foundation (unverified) has not been acknowledged as being notable in independent sources (compared to other law firms). Edcolins 19:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

• I'm only new here, but this does seem like an advertising page. If they can do it, then we would like to, also! patently 09:07, 24 August 2007 (GMT)

• Keep The Legal 500 survey is an independent secondary source. The firm is clearly described as the top flight of firms outside London; the term "regional" in this sense refers to everywhere in the UK apart from the capital. Surely being verifiably ranked as one of the best firms in the country for your speciality by a reliable third party source implies notability? Also, notable legal cases are only notable due to the lawyers that take part in them, so this only adds to the firm's notability. As an aside, I would note that I have had some issues linking to the correct legal 500 page, which should be here, but if that doesn't work, try going to the legal 500 homepage, then clicking United Kingdom, London (nonsensically), then Regional Patent and trademark Attorneys, then you should see Barker Brettell listed at number 1. --Epacpa 13:05, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

With respect to Epacpa's view, the Legal 500 seems to accept entries based on whether or not the firm wishes to pay for space, not on the basis of its own research into the sector. As a partner in a firm of patent & trade mark attorneys, my only contact with Legal 500 has been as the recipient of mailshots asking for my money, not my opinion of other firms. Perhaps research is carried out on those who are included (I wouldn't know!), but that would then be a selection from a limited group only and therefore not independent. Patently 16:16, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable verification of that suggestion? Also, just because they haven't polled you, why does that mean they haven't polled other independent people? --Epacpa 14:05, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

In fact, they explicitly say that they don't accept payment for inclusion - inclusion is by merit only, and based on the views of clients for whom the firms have acted and their researchers. It would therefore seem a reliable source, IMO. --Epacpa 15:31, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Further, legal cases are usually regarded as notable due to the issues they raise or the principles they set out; the lawyer involved would only become notable if those principles were the result of his/her especially insightful analysis of the case. Establishing that through verifiable independent sources would be a steep hill to climb, especially as I haven't heard of either case.

Now, I'm going to refrain from expressing a firm opinion either way; I hope that this is not seen as unhelpful, but (as I said) I'm new here as a registered user (although I've gratefully used the resource for some time) so I'm reluctant to press either way on what (in the end) is a policy issue perhaps best left to those with more experience. But this is an interesting question; can an article such as this remain on Wikipedia?? If so, we can expect to see many more; that will undoubtedly be useful to many, but is it what is wanted from Wikipedia? Patently 16:16, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Epacpa, since you created the article, since you are the sole contributor to the article (with me), and given your advice to Patently on his talk page to go ahead and create an article about his firm (!!), I would not be surprised you work at Barker Brettell... If yes, please read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. You may also consider declaring an interest, although this is not mandatory. Thanks.

To the admin closing the discussion: please consider whether Epacpa's opinion should be taken into account or not, given his list of contributions. Thanks. --Edcolins 19:58, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I work at Barker Brettell, but I hasten to add that I have made all my edits in good faith and have tried to keep the article as NPOV as I can. (and, as an aside, what is wrong with encouraging people to be bold if they keep within wikipedia's guidelines, as I advised?) --Epacpa 09:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Delete, as it appears not to have any independent sources about the law firm. The cases and the attorneys may be notable, but not the law firm, and notability is not "inherited". Bearian 18:41, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Edcolins. Although the article has independent sources, they are not sufficient to demonstrate notability per WP:CORP. The refences indicate the firm's involvement in court cases, but this is what you would expect and is what they are paid to do. Notabilty to come, perhaps.--Gavin Collins 12:12, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

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.