Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meritas (law)

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. Stifle (talk) 15:41, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Meritas (law)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Does not meet current standards for notability off organizations almost all the references are just about people on joining or leaving the firm DGG ( talk ) 05:46, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:51, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:51, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sufficient references from independent sources.Rathfelder (talk) 23:19, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, WP:NCORP, WP:NOTINHERITED, and my standards for law firms. Unlike a bar association, this is a for-profit conglomerate, so the rules for automatic notability do not apply. There's nothing on the page that ties its clients or member law firms to independent notability. As far as I'm concerned, this firm lacks any factor that would make it notable. Bearian (talk) 21:18, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   Kadzi   (talk) 11:50, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:29, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,

Salvio

16:32, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per [1] (Montreal Gazette) [2] (The Herald). Could use a good stubbification if it stays. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 18:15, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: Those aren't strong cites, but sufficient to pass the bar ... pun not intended. Ravenswing 17:02, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the research of AleatoryPonderings. Montreal Gazette and The Herald (Glasgow) are reliable sources. Wm335td (talk) 19:38, 24 August 2020 (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.