Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kreindler & Kreindler LLP

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, tending towards keep. Stifle (talk) 10:40, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kreindler & Kreindler LLP

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

Non-notable small law firm, article appears to be promotional to boot. -- Y not? 17:55, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Article was evidently started by this dude and expanded by aviation lawyer (talk · contribs) - it's clearly spam. -- Y not? 16:51, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it fails my standards for notability of attorneys. They are just doing their jobs for their clients, which is their fiduciary duty and to be blunt, run of the mill. The article fails general notability, and their one really big case was news in 2003. Bearian (talk) 01:13, 15 February 2011 (UTC) Keep per WP:HEY. The article has been rescued. Bearian (talk) 15:47, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aw, thanks :-)--Korruski^Talk 16:14, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. At the risk of making an "I've heard of it" argument, these guys really were the best-known aviation attorneys. There are quite a few articles from reliable sources to support that.[1] See, e.g., "A Pioneer in Air-Crash Lawsuits Files for Families in TWA Tragedy", Daily News, 1996[2]; "Kreindler, who literally wrote the book, Aviation and Accident Law", Miami Herald, 1988[3]; Kreindler is "founder of air disaster law", NY Times, 2003[4]; "Lee Kreindler, Seen as Founder of Air Disaster Law", Newsday, 2003[5], etc. --Arxiloxos (talk) 04:09, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You are making an argument that Kreindler himself is notable, though I think it's pretty marginal. The firm is NN regardless, and besides the article is pretty spammy. -- Y not? 16:45, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The law firm was the lead attorneys in the Lockerbie case, but also the TWA 800 litigation, the Swissair 111 case, the American 587 case and virtually all other aviation cases. The firm is currently involved in the Colgan Air Flight 3407 case. I think the information is factual and not overly promotional. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aviation Litigator (talk • contribs) 16:14, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Aviation Litigator, you should please familiarize yourself with our conflicts of interest policies. -- Y not? 16:45, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are sources available [6], [7] and [8]. Although clearly the article has failed to cite these or other wp:Reliable sources, it is possible to do so. That said, user:Aviation Litigator needs to carefully observe wp:COI. Signification of that user's willingness to comply with that policy might well begin with ~~striking through~~ of their above !vote. LeadSongDog come howl! 20:15, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -per nom. FieldMarine (talk) 23:05, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:51, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It may be worth the above two editors reading WP:PERNOM. Given that the nomination consists only of an assertion of non-notability, a pernom !vote is particularly unhelpful.--Korruski^Talk 11:13, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have added one of the sources LeadSongDog mentioned, as well as one I found. Although the article needs a lot of improvement, there is a certain amount of independent coverage from reliable sources, and the claim that Kreindler effectively founded air disaster litigation and that the firm has acted for the plaintiffs in almost every major air disaster of the last 50 years certainly point to notability. Given that, I am landing just on the side of keep.--Korruski^Talk 11:27, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have added further sources, including one that shows that they won an award for their work on the Lockerbie case. I do not see how the firms work can be described as 'run of the mill'.--Korruski^Talk 11:45, 16 February 2011 (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.