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. There is a clear consensus to keep this article. Please note that WP:NCOMPANY is only a guideline which does not employ the full force of policy and is subject to editor interpretation. As this company is "one of the two largest law firms in Sweden", and that NCOMPANY is a guideline which permits occasional exceptions, in this instance, the company notable enough for inclusion. Nakon 07:01, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Advokatfirman Vinge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:Necrothesp with the following argument: "deprod; seems to be large enough for an article". Size, however, is not relevant to notability. If size makes company notable, it is a factor discussed in reliable sources - which are not present in the article. The fact that the company claims to be big and has few hundreds people, in the end, means nothing for us - it's just spammy trivia. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:39, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. If it does indeed employ 300 lawyers and have a turnover of 100 million euro and is one of the largest law firms in Sweden then I believe it is notable. There is no spam or trivia in the article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:14, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those are not valid criteria. We are not Yellow Pages, or some business ranking. Employing foo-zens people, or making x zillions of Foo-ian currency is not enough. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:34, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's merely your opinion. It isn't mine. Who says they're not valid criteria? -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:21, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Our guideline at Wikipedia:Notability (companies) says so. You can, of course, disagree with it, but my "opinion" in assessment based on the community consensus in the form of said guideline. Your view, however, is indeed just a personal opinion disagreeing with it. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:58, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:14, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:14, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I see no reason for deletion as it is a reputable law firm. If anything for WP:GNG--BabbaQ (talk) 21:17, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Being reputable is not a criteria for notability, neither Wikipedia:Notability (companies) or WP:GNG. And if they are really reputable, you should be able to show sources that say so, as required by GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:58, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Article is neither spam nor trivia. Large company that has employed many notable Swedish lawyers. bbx (talk) 09:03, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neither is a valid argument in light of our policies. Being large is not a recognized criteria for WP:NCOMPANY. Employing notable people is irrelevant, notability is not inherited, and you don't even mention who. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:01, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep If the second largest law firm of a country isn't notable enough from that fact alone it is the notability criterias that need to be changed. /FredrikT (talk) 15:22, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then change our policies first, then ask for this to be undeleted. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:01, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not a policy; it's a guideline. Guide, not set in stone. Common sense always takes precedence. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:09, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Word. bbx (talk) 01:40, 8 April 2015 (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.