Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bright Case

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. Courcelles 00:55, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bright Case

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

Non-notable law firm. It has not been the subject of any significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. The claim that it would have over 250 attorneys is not backed by any verifiable source. Delete. Edcolins (talk) 10:59, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cautious Delete I can't find anything about this firm that didn't come from the firm. Typically with a large firm you come across cases they've been in, other attorneys that work there (I can only find one), and articles written by their attorneys on legal issues. With this firm, I just keep coming back to their website and to standard firm-listing services (Legal 500, etc.). The article lacks any citations to notable sources, and I can find none, so I've got to think this is a delete.--TheOther Bob 14:24, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 15:59, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 16:00, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, dubious notability, no relevant third party sources found, and the company's webpage is a mess of grammatical errors. Fishy at best. Hairhorn (talk) 18:00, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Hairhorn. Extraordinarily fishy that a law firm has six offices, but that its website mentions only one attorney. No secondary coverage. I have suspicions of off-wiki agenda that I won't vocalize. THF (talk) 19:17, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete I didn't AFD this because; of everything this user has added, this was the most plausible - I originally thought this was likely to be his practise, and he had just constructed some spam around it in a misguided promotional effort. - Especially considering the firm had made some serious claims (like having five offices, in multiple locations and an independent reference in the legal 500). - However, after doing some research I have serious doubts that this firm is anything except a bizarre hoax. The crux of my suspicion is that their london office is also listed as the home of an SEO company and a variety of other dodgy websites, I remain unsure about the precise nature of this user and this firm, but extremely suspicious of both and cannot see they merit anything other than a quick delete. Ajbpearce (talk) 23:07, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for reasons mentioned above. Drmies (talk) 03:55, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can find no evidence of notability suggested by secondary sources. Peacock (talk) 14:27, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A Google search of the company found nothing in the form of case files mentioned or areas of expertise, which would be expected of a law firm this large.Wolfstorm000 (talk) 02:07, 19 November 2010 (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.