Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Holley Nethercote Commercial Lawyers

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 of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Holley Nethercote Commercial Lawyers

Australian law firm - no evidence of notability

• Delete as per my nom. Dlyons493 Talk 06:42, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as the creator of the article, I've now expounded on the notable feature of the entity - its compliance business model. I've also included references to Holley Nethercote from publications of external organisations. This is evidence of notability, as set out in item 1 of the Wiki guidelines.Visitpaul 03:24, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

This AfD debate is being relisted in order to prompt a more thorough consensus. Please place new discussion below this line. Dlyons493 Talk 16:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as nonnotable. As far as I can tell, there are only two external-linked items in the article that actually mention Holley Nethercote (the "Money Management" and "Good Returns" links). The article in Money Management features a single quote from one of the firm's partners, giving his opinion on another company's legal troubles, with no further mention of Holley Nethercote. The article does not feature or concentrate on Holley Nethercote itself, and is not evidence of notability. The second article, from Good Returns, is a "special report" on that site -- however, Good Returns is an online-only "magazine" started in 1996. I'm not sure what this means in terms of its influence -- perhaps someone else could illuminate me here. Certainly, it's not on the level of, say, Fortune. In summary, these two links do not make Holley Nethercote's notability obvious to me. Unless more evidence can be supplied, this corporation remains non-notable. Best, Docether 17:46, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete This firm is nowhere near notable enough. Blake Dawson Waldron Lawyers profile is the sort of notability we're looking for to sustain an article about a particular Australian law firm. SM247 21:37, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I could find one reference to this lawfirm in an Australian media database - an article in the Australian of December 1, 2004 referring to financial planning. They appear not to have been involved in any notable cases or reached a critical mass to make them notable according to our guidelines. Capitalistroadster 00:37, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete -- nn law firm. - Longhair 02:42, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable law firm. --Roisterer 05:49, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - not notable.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 00:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable law firm. Rebecca 09:30, 6 June 2006 (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.