Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HART Legal

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:27, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

HART Legal

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

No evidence of any notability. Refs all focus on one employee being nominated by a local paper. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 17:33, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:39, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:39, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Article is relevant. Provided sources from both local and provincial sources. I am still working on building out the page from a stub article. This law firm gets a lot of media attention in BC. This article may not be interesting to those outside of the area, but is still interesting to those in the legal profession. I am not involved with HART Legal.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronanattili (talk • contribs)

Delete. Seems to be local coverage only, does not meet WP:CORP. - MrOllie (talk) 20:10, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No convincing indication of notability. TJRC (talk) 20:48, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural note I've blocked the article creator and a number of socks and WP:MEAT that were clearly using Wikipedia to promote the company. This related article will likely need review as well as it was created by the same sock for the same purpose.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:34, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Should really be CSD'd, due to it's lack of notability. —JJ Be rs 15:34, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - CSD was my initial thought, but the statement "The company was the first law firm in Canada to franchise across Canada and into the USA" might well have been taken as indicating significance, hence the AfD. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 15:44, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:04, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:04, 24 April 2017 (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.