Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Holland & Hart (2nd nomination)

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:47, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Holland & Hart

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. This is a pure promotional puff piece "organization that fosters volunteerism among lawyers, staff, alumni, friends and clients and builds a sense of community by supporting worthy causes across Holland & Hart’s footprint", sourced to its own webpages and few directory listings. I can see no coverage in press (and if someone digs up an article or two in marginal, local press, please remember that we require coverage by non-niche media, and that mentions in passing, such as "John Smith from Foo company said..." do not count). It's WP:CORPSPAM. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:23, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as, put aside the unsurprising state of 2006 AfDs, there's literally nothing here to suggest actual independent substance especially for a genuinely convincing article, especially since everything is literally their own "About Us" section, complete with their own cited sources, I'm honestly not finding better than that, so it basically summarizes itself. SwisterTwister talk 03:20, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:33, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:33, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:33, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- self-cited corporate spam on an unremarkable law firm. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:33, 19 November 2016 (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.