Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martin Place Chambers

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. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:45, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Place Chambers

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

Non-notable set of barristers' chambers (akin to a non-notable law firm) - fails WP:ORG. ukexpat (talk) 19:37, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

strong delete fails WP:CORP. Probable advert, the article creator us a single purpose editor also created Peter Tomasetti which I have just nominated for deletion. LibStar (talk) 16:23, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:05, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This might be a plausible redirect to Martin Place, Sydney. It comes up immediately in GMaps, produces this in GBooks and seems obvious. James500 (talk) 19:58, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would not support redirect, otherwise we will start redirecting every non notable business in Martin place there. LibStar (talk) 13:51, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could you perhaps identify which criteria of WP:R you are referring to, if any? I think your argument is doomed to failure because this is a generic expression that could potentially refer to any chambers in Martin Place. The fact it appears in presumably independent sources doesn't hurt either. It is not obvious to me that this is an organisation rather than a place. In England, a "chambers" is a set of rooms. It isn't obvious to me that the arguments I am advancing are applicable to "every non notable business in Martin place". James500 (talk) 18:49, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

57 page views in January. James500 (talk) 08:02, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete One of many, many similar offices in Sydney's legal district Nick-D (talk) 01:32, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects are cheap. It isn't obvious that "there are many, many similar ones" is a problem. Why do you think it is it a problem? James500 (talk) 07:49, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no independent reliable sources showing how this firm is significant.-- danntm ^T _C 23:58, 15 September 2014 (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.