Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diamond and Diamond

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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:40, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Diamond and Diamond

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

Not a notable Canadian law firm. Not worthy of a wikipedia article. The length of this article demonstrates that. Sportsfan100 1999 (talk) 06:52, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 07:24, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 07:24, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:33, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - other than press releases, trivial mentions, and listings, not enough to show they pass WP:CORPDEPTH, and they clearly don't pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:02, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unlikely notable local company. SwisterTwister talk 21:11, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy - it's possibly big enough to pass my standards, but I can't tell from the information and citations in the article right now. Bearian (talk) 21:43, 21 January 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.