Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ǼLEX

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 no consensus. Split between those who feel the subject is notable (with sources provided) and those who believe it should be deleted as promotional. While the latter is of course valid, it can be fixed through editing - which I see has already begun during the AfD. ansh666 21:04, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ǼLEX

ǼLEX (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)

Blatant promotional article for a non notable company failing

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 01:00, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Insufficient coverage to pass
  talk) 11:06, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

keep per darreg. We do not expect the same level of coverage from a third world country as from a developed country. Ran an online check and it seems they're apparently notable. Convinced by darreg's argument, I'd now change to keep.

talk) 00:04, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 11:07, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 11:07, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete. We have a lot of spammy law firms articles, this is a good example. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:26, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete non notable organization. There is insufficient independent sources to establish notability.  — Ammarpad (talk) 11:05, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I changed my stance. All sources of Pastorflex are indeed true and this one is even another. –Ammarpad (talk) 02:09, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 12:31, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the article is about a notable Nigerian Law Firm, which is listed in notable international global law rankings including International Financial Law Review [1] and Chambers and Partners ' Chambers Global Ranking [2]. Also cases and activities of the firm have been well reported in Nigerian national dailies including The Vanguard Newspaper [3], [4], Business Day [5]and the Guardian Newspapers [6] and these are just some of the notable mentions. In this way it passes
  WP:CORP guidelines, which states Sources used to support a claim of notability include independent, reliable publications in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, television documentaries, websites, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations.Pastorflex (talk) 19:26, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

@

Wikipedia's guidelines on managing conflicts of interest, please could you disclose whether you have a personal or professional connection with the subject of this discussion? Thanks, ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 21:12, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

@Dom Kaos: I am not professionally or personally linked to the subject, however I have been instrumental in creating articles about Nigerian subjects and I noticed in recent times, media buzz in local Nigerian media about the firm regarding their activities and did some research, I figured that they appear to be notable and encyclopedia worthy and decided to create the article, working with another editor. Pastorflex (talk) 22:19, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: I must confess, I am not very familiar with notability of law firms. But going by references online, they seem to be a top law firm in Nigeria. I even think this is about the first WP article on a Nigerian law firm. If I was to start a WP contest on Nigerian law system, I will definitely consider them.

@

Darreg: You are right on their founder, in writing the article for the firm, I noticed she has been a major player in Nigerian Law and even contested for the NBA presidency at a point, I am currently working on her article and will tag you for inputs once I am done with the draft. Thank you very much!Pastorflex (talk) 09:59, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

I will be more than glad to collaborate with you in the creation of

talk) 18:58, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

@

Darreg: thank you, I will Pastorflex (talk) 10:07, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete Per nom, the secondary sources cited by the article in question possibly fail
  WP:CORPDEPTH as in-depth coverage is lacking.--SamHolt6 (talk) 07:56, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

What about the national awards won? Please be informed that the way Nigerian media covers significant organizations is quite different from how it is done elsewhere. Except in cases of promotional press releases, it doesn't get better than this. This is a firm that is regarded as one of the largest in W/Africa, founded by a top 7 female lawyers in Nigeria. Not deleting this article will only motivate the creator to cover more Nigerian contents. IF this was a law firm in America, there would be thousands of coverage for it. Its just the third world factor that is making it look marginally notable.

talk) 23:51, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep I think the "Partner focus" section could be removed or rewritten entirely - it reads very
  WP:NCORP. Comatmebro (talk) 04:29, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment I detest any form of
  WP:CRYSTALBALL we editors work with reliable sources without which we simply cannot effectively do what is required of us, sentiments kept aside we know this article does not conform to the polices and rules binding all us editors irrespective of race, gender and whatnot, that it is a Nigerian article does not make it special or free of same scrunity every other article undergoes. Nigeria today is greatly improved as pertains to information technology, so the argument that reliable or significant coverage is not readily available in the article due to the fact that the law firm is in Nigeria holds no water we have no policy that gives any particular country special rights over others let us do the right thing here.Celestina007 (talk
  ) 19:37, 29 November 2017

• After you waited for all people to speak so as to detect the tilt of conclusion you still missed the shot with vague comment and conjectures. You said no reliable coverage about it, that's because you didn't do
  speculation and thought of writers or journalist. But WP:CRYSTAL cannot apply to a firm that exists for as nearly as long as Wikipedia itself. You should re- read what guidline or policy say before qouting it out of oc context just because you crammed its shortcut. –Ammarpad (talk) 05:21, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• WP:NPA you should know that. let us argue polices out without getting emotional, can you please make constructive arguements without the attacks? you are more experienced than i am here so i should not be reminding you of basic things like this. Celestina007 (talk
  ) 20:06, 11 December 2017

• If there is "certain blatant promotional peacock statements made in the article" as you claimed, the right thing is to either
  WP:CRYSTALBALL by saying that you mean something, if you want say something like 'unsourced content' you can just say it, but don't use wrong guideline and justify with that. Then, I am very mindful of my words here and averse to uncivil remarks. I didn't know how cramming shortcut is personal attack, but nonetheless, I am sorry if you assume it is. Then finally; not only you, anybody who will come to AfD and say "they waited for all people to comment before they make their own, this needs no debate, they want see the tilt of closure and pile on. –Ammarpad (talk) 07:55, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep I think Pastorflex has more than demonstrated notability here. There are plenty of independent refs.Egaoblai (talk) 07:05, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Please @Egaoblai: fix your comment it shows all in bold. –Ammarpad (talk) 07:27, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WhoopsEgaoblai (talk) 07:47, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. , possibly speedy delete G11. Entirely promotional. This is an advertisement for the company: list of partners, list of awards, boxed highly promotional quotation, onlyconceivable content for an encyclopedia is a list of their yearly lectures, which thearticle itself says are intended to promote the firm. Notability is irrelevant in comparison with NOT PROMOTIONAL DGG ( talk ) 22:12, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails
  -- HighKing⁺⁺ 13:33, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. J947 ^{(c · m)} 04:54, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. J947 ^{(c · m)} 04:54, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete NOTPROMO is also a valid reason to delete - and yeah it's pretty promotional. A nice quote box praising it like it's the company website. Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:02, 15 December 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.