Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gaby Hardwicke Solicitors

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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:02, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gaby Hardwicke Solicitors[edit]

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

One news story relating to Facebook, rest of sources seem weak. Firm not notable. This is an advert. Philafrenzy (talk) 23:50, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - easily passes my standards. This firm is over 100 years old, and if true and can be verified, their service by Facebook would be groundbreaking. Bearian (talk) 18:48, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:52, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Probably keep – The article doesn't have a promotional tone, and it's likely that more pre-internet print sources are available, since the company was established in 1889. Coverage exists in The London Gazette. Additional sources available online include:

– Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:48, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Law firm of 100+ years old has unusual longevity; that's practically per se notable for larger firms. --Lquilter (talk) 22:16, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Northamerica1000. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:36, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on sources. The Telegraph story is OK but the others mean nothing. Two are stories in local newspapers to the firm that are clearly based on press releases issued by the firm about somebody joining and staff doing some charity work. Every local newspaper is full of this stuff, they have to fill the pages with something. The reference to the London Gazette is also no good because that is an official government publication that exists precisely so that legal firms and the like can place notices about their clients, e.g. bankrupcy etc. None of these, apart from the Telegraph, is real journalism about the firm and lists like this in the deletion debate create a misleading impression for other editors about the level of notice that the subject has really had. Philafrenzy (talk) 03:00, 12 February 2014 (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.