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. Sandstein 20:19, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Howard Nassiri[edit]

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

Law firm does not appear to be notable. A couple third-party sources are included in the article but they are not directly about the firm, they're about court cases and legal battles, and just mention the firm as well. The whole thing reads like promotional marketing copy. Possible COI. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 18:08, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This page was created in order to show that Howard Nassiri is notable firm worth of encyclopedic interest. In doing this, I examined other Wikipedia law firm entries for Wiki format and style like the following examples: Levin & Perconti, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, and Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton. The feedback (above) that I received states that it reads like promotional marketing copy--if that is true how are the above law firm pages that I cited still published on Wikipedia, as they are all promotional?

With great feedback from the user above (Burpelson), I have since edited the post extensively and tried to re-write from a more neutral tone, to avoid sounding like advertising, and added more verifiable sources to prove notability. Any other feedback is greatly appreciated.

Also, as a first user, I originally (erroneously) chose a username that was similar to the post (vhoward1600) and have since changed my username, as I am an independent contributor--to avoid a conflict of interest. Thanks! --MZNGR4 (talk) 17:52, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that this discussion is only about whether Howard Nassiri meets our requirements for an article, which can be found at WP:N and WP:ORG. It is quite possible that the article on the other law firms that you listed don't meet those requirements, in which case they can be discussed separately. You wouldn't get very far in a criminal legal case by saying that Jane Doe should be acquitted of an offence because Joe Bloggs committed a similar offence and wasn't prosecuted. The same logic applies to Wikipedia deletion discussions. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:21, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:42, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Phil Bridger comment: Thanks for your comments about the post--I understand your point completely. However, this is not a criminal legal case, this is an encyclopedic resource, and the discussion is about whether the submitted content (Howard Nassiri) meets the required style and format of Wikipedia. If I wanted to submit a possible entry to Encyclopedia Britannica, I would first look in the very source, the Encyclopedia, for a specific and clear example of the publication's style and format. Wikipedia is also an encyclopedic resource with entries that are reviewed by Wiki editors, and as a first time user, I first looked to accepted Wikipedia posts for examples of Wikipedia's guidelines and rules and content format. And by doing this, according to one editor, the post originally read more like marketing. I have since rewritten the post closely following the WP:N guidelines. And as for content, I still feel that this law firm is notable, with important references proving that Howard Nassiri has shown (as the WP:N guidelines require) "significant or demonstrable effects on society" in Southern California. Thanks!--MZNGR4 (talk) 00:16, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Wikipedia: Notability page: "When evaluating the notability of organizations or products, please consider whether they have had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education. Large organizations and their products are likely to have more readily available verifiable information from reliable sources that provide evidence of notability. However, smaller organizations and their products can be notable, just as individuals can be notable. Arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations or their products."
--As an independent contributor, I believe that Howard Nassiri is a notable law firm by having "significant and demonstrable effect" on society--in the area of mortgage foreclosure in Southern California. As I wrote in a recent addition to the post: "In a well-publicized Southern California foreclosure case from 2009, Rita Gillam, an 86-year-old widow living in Orange County, California was about to lose her home of over fifty years, after her lender, Fremont Investment & Loan, went out of business in the subprime mortgage crisis and was accused of predatory lending by the state.[5] After hearing Gillam’s story on the news[6], Howard Nassiri offered to take the case on a pro bono basis and fought aggressively to help Gillam save her home.[7]" MZNGR4 (talk) 00:25, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't doubt that Nassiri has tried many cases and even been mentioned in the media in conjunction with some of these cases, however I don't believe it satisfies the specific associated guideline (WP:CORPDEPTH). Are there any third-party sources that cover the subject specifically, and not just as a passing mention in an article that is actually about someone else? This is what we need. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 18:49, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Sources

I have just added two more sources by the National Law Journal, to provide more national and reliable secondary coverage about the controversial work that the firm is doing in regards to medical marijuana dispensaries in California. As for a third party source, I did add an article by Nancy Wride from the Consumer Attorneys of California discusses the firm and under the topic of dealing with the foreclosure boom. However, under the link that you sent about me (WP:CORPDEPTH), about primary, secondary and tertiary sources, it is my understanding that under Wiki policy, "Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from secondary sources. Articles may make analytic or evaluative claims only if these have been published by a reliable secondary source..." and also "secondary sources are second-hand accounts, at least one step removed from an event. They rely on primary sources for their material, often making analytic or evaluative claims about them."

---I believe that all of the secondary sources that I have listed are reliable, with local and national news sources from the National Law Journal, The Los Angeles Times, KPCC, The Orange County Register, The Washington Independent, CNET News, Fox News, KTLA News, The Gavel Journal. I believe that these sources prove that according to the (WP:CORPDEPTH), these articles make analytic or evaluative claims that have been published in reliable secondary sources as to Howard Nassiri's notability as a small law firm, as Howard Nassiri is actively representing notable and groundbreaking cases affecting society, making this firm an expert in these areas of law--again proving notability. According to Wikipedia: Notability, a small company is notable if they "have had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society..." As a small organization, I believe that Howard Nassiri is just as notable as a larger organization with more third party sources, and according to [[Wikipedia: Notability] "large organizations and their products are likely to have more readily available verifiable information from reliable sources that provide evidence of notability. However, smaller organizations and their products can be notable, just as individuals can be notable. Arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations or their products." I believe that you are applying arbitrary standards to this small organization because of a lack of third party sources, and I do believe that the entry meets the specific associated Wiki guideline (WP:CORPDEPTH) with the secondary sources provided. And as for the secondary sources provided, they aren't discussing Howard Nassiri as you said, "as a passing mention in an article"--in fact the firm is interviewed as a notable expert, representative, notable source in an ongoing discussion on a formidable and notable legal topic. Thanks for your consideration!--MZNGR4 (talk) 17:00, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---After reading this discussion, I think this law firm is notable and should be accepted into Wikipedia. The firm has taken on very important cases in the two timely and controversial fields: wrongful foreclosure and medical marijuana. These two issues are widely discussed in the American political arena, and I believe that the author of the article has proved that this law firm has taken on potential far-reaching and impactful cases which involve those issues. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.90.3.142 (talk) 02:37, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete essentially advertising for a small 5-lawyer firm with 4 offices all in southern California, that attempts to present itself in the lede as a "national law firm". I sometimes try to rewrite articles like this to decrease the advertising and highlight the notability; however, my first attempt was not enough of an improvement to be worth saving, and, realizing the basic contrast between the first sentence and the list of locations, I thought I could not justify further efforts. DGG ( talk ) 04:11, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do not Delete - this law firm appears to be notable, and does not read like advertising. Yes, the firm is based in Southern California--but it states in the history of the company that the firm is a "national firm" because it works with other affiliated attorneys throughout the United States--204.140.189.253 (talk) 23:40, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---Re: National Law Firm discussion: I added further clarification in the Howard Nassiri page about the firm's status as a national law firm. Although the principal partners of Howard Nassiri maintain licenses to practice law only in the state of California, the firm collaborates with over fifty nationally recognized associates of Howard Nassiri, who are of counsel to the firm, and are licensed to practice law and actively litigate cases in several different jurisdictions throughout the United States. I have removed the "Office Locations" section to avoid confusion.--MZNGR4 (talk) 02:54, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per WP:ADVERTISEMENT and WP:ORG. A non notable company, and the article is written by a person with an obvious COI. Dragquennom (talk) 18:03, 21 April 2011 (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.