Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Camberford Law
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. — Coren (talk) 03:22, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Camberford Law (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Fails Notability requirements. Contains almost no inbound links. - Superflewis (talk) 16:14, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per my nomination --Superflewis (talk) 16:20, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree with the deletion in this case as I could not find any sources on Google News or Google Books. --Elisabeth Rogan (talk) 17:48, 14 September 2008 (UTC)Note - account since indefblocked. Black Kite 22:36, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Elisabeth Rogan indef'ed. See WP:AN#Right to vanish and not vanished. seicer | talk | contribs 00:19, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The above sock missed these 78 returns in Google News? 50 year old Lloyd's listed broker - almost certainly notable. Black Kite 20:11, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- KeepAs I understand the significance: According to Lloyd's of London#Structure, a Lloyd's agent is the firm a purchaser of insurance deals with to obtain a policy at Lloyd's. there are, from our article, 164 of them. Are all of them notable? I do not know, but it is probable from the G News results that this is a leading firm among them, though I would like some quantitative data about turnover and market share. (This, even though about 9/10 of the hits are to press releases, which abound in G news -- Europe Intelligence Wire is a RS only to in the sense that it reprints them reliably, just like its US counterparts. Many of the others are simply interviews with the principals of the firm, reliably sources for whatever they choose to say. By precedent, they are usable for uncontroversial facts, but should not be confused with independent RSs--we use them because there is often no easily available better source for company information.) DGG (talk) 02:57, 15 September 2008 (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.