Hugh James (law firm): The coverage in Legal 500 etc. applies to any law firm worth its salt, and I think it is being well established that appearing in a ranking doesn't make a company notable.  Curb Safe Charmer ( talk ) 14:26, 7 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Wales .  Curb Safe Charmer ( talk ) 14:26, 7 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 16:41, 7 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Satisfies GNG with significant coverage in national newspapers and other sources.  There is very extensive coverage in The Times.  There is also coverage in The Financial Times, The Daily Telegraph, The Independent, and The Guardian.  There is also coverage in The Scotsman and Reuters and The Week.  There is very extensive coverage in WalesOnline.  There is very extensive coverage in many periodicals and news sources in Google News.  There is a very large number of news and periodical articles that are entirely about this firm.  The last time I checked, it is not routine for any British law firm to receive the exceptionally large volume of coverage this one has.  That is not surprising because most British law firms are not as large as this one.  It is or was the largest Welsh law firm: [1] .  James500 ( talk ) 00:15, 9 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ James500 : There are 87 mentions of the firm in The Times , though one is not about the law firm.  Which of those do you consider to be in depth, independent, secondary coverage?  Four of those are articles by Alan Collins, a partner at the firm who is also a columnist at The Times , e.g. this .  Most of the others are quotations.  The article you linked to is four paragraphs about them, as part of 200 Best Law Firms 2019 .  Please cite some of the best examples?  Curb Safe Charmer ( talk ) 15:06, 9 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Okay, I was not aware of Alan Collins.  It will take me time to do a write up of the available sources.  I have a lot to do at the moment.  However, we could sidestep this altogether by a page move to Lawyers in Wales , Legal profession in Wales , Legal sector in Wales , Law firms in Wales or something like that, followed by a rewrite.  That would satisfy GNG beyond argument eg [2] and other sources, including more modern ones.  James500 ( talk ) 02:52, 10 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The search you ran does not bring up all the results in The Times that Google brings up.  In the following, I shall confine my attention to The Times , as you requested.  The following articles are profiles of Hugh James in The Times: [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] .  These are entire periodical articles entirely about the firm.  Such articles are in depth, secondary coverage.  I am not aware of any notability guideline that requires more than four paragraphs of coverage.  Whether they are independent would depend on whether Alan Collins had any influence over them.  I do not know the answer to that question yet.  The following articles are about the case of "Edwards on behalf of the Estate of the late Thomas Arthur Watkins (Respondent) v Hugh James Ford Simey Solicitors (Appellant)" in which the law firm Hugh James Ford Simey was sued for negligence: [8] [9] .  The following article is about the internal affairs of the firm: [10] .  There are also a lot of articles in The Times about litigation conducted by Hugh James on behalf of clients.  For example, at one point they acted for 6,500 people in the Seroxat case, which has a lot of coverage everywhere.  James500 ( talk ) 11:38, 14 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , on the basis of multiple articles in general Wales business media, such as Business Live, or the general news outlet Wales Online [11] , for example.  Admittedly the article is currently poorly sourced but there is ample opportunity to add reliable citations if required.  Sionk ( talk ) 19:05, 11 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: For input on the sources presented by James500.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, CycloneYoris talk!  07:26, 15 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Can someone check out these sources?  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Coco bb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs ) 14:40, 22 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Last attempt at looking for further input.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 23:24, 29 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : The new references are enough to establish notability.  Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 02:16, 30 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Eastmain : which 'new references' are you referring to?  None have been added to the article in the last five years?  Curb Safe Charmer ( talk ) 15:33, 1 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] That's a basic misunderstanding of WP:GNG and WP:NCORP, which is based on the existence of coverage, not necessarily used in the Wikipedia article .  Sionk ( talk ) 07:04, 3 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Sionk : I'm not saying the sources have to be in the article; I am simply asking which 'new sources' Eastmain and Iwaqarhashmi are referring to.  Curb Safe Charmer ( talk ) 09:01, 4 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : I believe the recent references significantly improve the article's notability.  Waqar 💬 17:10, 30 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Eastmain : which 'recent references' are you referring to?  None have been added to the article in the last five years?  Curb Safe Charmer ( talk ) 15:33, 1 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete This is a company (law firms are still companies/organizations) therefore GNG/ WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company* .   "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject .  It appears that James500 above misses half the point of "Independent" sources - not only must we show that the publication is independent but that the content is also independent.  The profiles pointed to in The Times above are part of the Top Law Firms series but the profile is a regurgitation of what the company says about itself and then it simple lists activity and cases in which they had clients to represent.  There is no in-depth information *about* the *company* in these profiles.  Fails both CORPDEPTH and ORGIND.  The next two articles also comment on *cases* in which the company had clients to represent, they do not provide in-depth information about the company.  The next article is an interview with their HR Director - no "Independent Content" fails ORGIND.  We require in-depth "Independent Content" *about* the *company* (not their principals, not cases they've been involved in, not their clients, etc).  None of the other Keep ! voters have identified any sources nor put forward an argument that is supported by guidelines or sources.  None of the sources meet the criteria and I'm unable to identify any references that do.  HighKing ++ 14:00, 1 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete With one exception, all I see are the humdrum company activities that are carried in trade papers and journals - company moves; company expands; company does X. I don't see any in depth analysis that would stand out.  The only exception is one I cannot access, but it is a very recent report that the firm is being sued Law360 .  Should that suit get wide coverage there may be (ironically) enough to source an article.  Lamona ( talk ) 03:58, 3 July 2024 (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.

Discussion outcome: delete