Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Roth Law Firm

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 (talk) 19:10, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Roth Law Firm

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

Nonnotable small law firm in NYC. Only claim to notability is a single lawsuit it filed that received a small amount of publicity. By analogy to WP:BLP1E, this shouldn't be enough for notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:40, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no guidelines other than WP:GNG, WP:CORP, and WP:BLP truly apply, and this fails all of them. BLP1E may apply, but only in a stretch. According to my own standards, I think they also fail. Their only well-reported lawsuit was in which they represented themselves. Jordan M. Kam was a leading editor of a law review or journal at an accredited law school, so he's borderline. Richard Roth teaches MCLE at an online site, not an accredited college or law school; he may have never taught in a clasroom for all we know. None of the attorneys, upon information and belief, have ever won or judged a major moot court, or served as chair of a bar committee, clerked, arguing any before the Supreme Court of the United States, or run for or served in major public office. Their associate is a fairly new attorney, having only been admitted two years ago, and possibly has not even tried a case as "first chair". Since none of the attorneys are notable, and it is a three-attorney firm, I can't see how the law firm is notable. Bearian (talk) 20:19, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This fails to meet a good standard of being notable. Miami33139 (talk) 00:44, 24 July 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.