Knowledge

:Articles for deletion/Gadens - Knowledge

Source 📝

496:
discuss the takeover of the Sydney and Perth offices by Dentons and then the re-establishment of a new Sydney office under the Gadens name. The second and third articles show the most notability. I'd agree with the sentiment that there are likely to be some offline sources discussing the firm (including probably under its older names e.g. Gadens Ridgeway and whatever it was known as before that).
330:: Having a quick look at the history of the article, plus search engine 'news' results, there are enough mentions by independent reliable sources to perhaps justify retention as a stub. A law firm that's more than 90 years old, with branches in four capital cities, is in my view likely to be notable enough for inclusion. But I agree the article as it currently stands is severely lacking. 366:: Looking at the sources I can find on the internet, none of them rises above routine coverage. Okay, so there are a couple white papers and profiles in industry publications, but they seem to lack independence. On the other hand, they are between 90 and 150 years old, so maybe there are more sources that aren't on the web. 480:
Of the 4 non-paywalled sources you listed, I think only the courier mail article is even borderline significant. The other three are mostly about other things that happen to include mentions of Gadens. True, two of them are about a settlement between Gadens and a (probably now former) client, but
347:- Gadens is a well-known and large law firm in Australia with coverage in several cities (and previously across Australia) and a long history (1928 in its current form), and back to the mid-1800s under previous names. There are enough mentions of the firm in external sources to justify notability. 495:
The Courier-Mail article is a short article on partners being poached, but the Australian article is a long articles about the establishment of the firm's Singapore office in 20113 (which was discussed in detail in the context of the liberalisation of Singapore's legal market), the AFR articles
403:. (Note that several of these are somewhat negative stories about losing branches to rivals, or having to make a damages payout, which would counter the promotional tone of previous versions of the article and leave it more balanced overall). There are also stories locked behind paywalls at 481:
the information there about Gadens is primary coverage, not secondary analysis. The titles on the pay-walled articles do look promising. Does anybody have access to be able to check them who is willing to give short analyses of the articles?
428:
Hard to say how independent the trade journals/industry publications are, but with multiple articles in the likes of Australasian Lawyer and Lawyers Weekly, combined with the above sources, I'm verging on the side of
208: 392: 161: 408: 284: 202: 416: 108: 412: 264: 93: 404: 396: 388: 456:
Except that the firm still exists in its own right, that might be appropriate if the entire firm had merged, but I understand your point.
400: 168: 88: 81: 17: 314: 292: 272: 252: 58: 102: 98: 223: 387:
Yes, it's definitely borderline as to whether it all amounts to significant coverage. Here's a few sources I found:
190: 134: 129: 612: 555: 310: 309:
for your re-write and to the dedicated volunteers of Knowledge to salvage an article. I am withdrawing this AfD.
288: 268: 248: 138: 40: 121: 438:
If we decide on delete, another option would be to merge any content worth retaining into the article for
608: 184: 36: 589: 562: 519: 501: 482: 461: 367: 352: 216: 180: 572: 523: 486: 447: 371: 335: 593: 576: 527: 505: 490: 465: 451: 375: 356: 339: 318: 296: 276: 256: 63: 511: 244: 230: 77: 56: 29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
607:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
240: 585: 548: 497: 457: 348: 568: 443: 331: 306: 196: 53: 155: 125: 567:
I've rewritten the article. Suggestions and further edits invited. Thanks,
439: 117: 69: 603:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
442:, which poached the Sydney and Perth offices of Gadens. 151: 147: 143: 215: 43:). No further edits should be made to this page. 615:). No further edits should be made to this page. 283:Note: This discussion has been included in the 263:Note: This discussion has been included in the 584:- thanks Meticulo - article is looking better. 510:Thank you. That sounds like articles that meet 285:list of Australia-related deletion discussions 229: 8: 109:Help, my article got nominated for deletion! 282: 262: 265:list of Law-related deletion discussions 7: 24: 243:, I believe this law firm fails 94:Introduction to deletion process 413:The Australian Financial Review 18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion 594:10:13, 30 September 2019 (UTC) 577:03:36, 30 September 2019 (UTC) 528:17:59, 25 September 2019 (UTC) 514:, so I am changing my vote to 506:12:21, 24 September 2019 (UTC) 491:11:33, 24 September 2019 (UTC) 466:11:14, 24 September 2019 (UTC) 452:23:27, 23 September 2019 (UTC) 376:18:05, 23 September 2019 (UTC) 357:10:59, 23 September 2019 (UTC) 340:09:06, 23 September 2019 (UTC) 319:03:41, 30 September 2019 (UTC) 297:01:19, 23 September 2019 (UTC) 277:01:19, 23 September 2019 (UTC) 257:01:19, 23 September 2019 (UTC) 64:10:30, 30 September 2019 (UTC) 1: 84:(AfD)? Read these primers! 632: 605:Please do not modify it. 32:Please do not modify it. 303:Withdrawn by nominator. 82:Articles for deletion 556:HickoryOughtShirt?4 311:HickoryOughtShirt?4 289:HickoryOughtShirt?4 269:HickoryOughtShirt?4 249:HickoryOughtShirt?4 389:The Straits Times 299: 279: 99:Guide to deletion 89:How to contribute 623: 566: 559: 552: 405:The Courier Mail 397:The Courier Mail 234: 233: 219: 171: 159: 141: 79: 34: 631: 630: 626: 625: 624: 622: 621: 620: 619: 613:deletion review 560: 553: 546: 176: 167: 132: 116: 113: 76: 73: 61: 48:The result was 41:deletion review 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 629: 627: 618: 617: 599: 598: 597: 596: 539: 538: 537: 536: 535: 534: 533: 532: 531: 530: 473: 472: 471: 470: 469: 468: 433: 432: 431: 430: 423: 422: 421: 420: 409:The Australian 379: 378: 359: 342: 324: 323: 322: 321: 280: 237: 236: 173: 112: 111: 106: 96: 91: 74: 72: 67: 59: 46: 45: 25: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 628: 616: 614: 610: 606: 601: 600: 595: 591: 587: 583: 580: 579: 578: 574: 570: 564: 557: 550: 544: 541: 540: 529: 525: 521: 517: 513: 509: 508: 507: 503: 499: 494: 493: 492: 488: 484: 479: 478: 477: 476: 475: 474: 467: 463: 459: 455: 454: 453: 449: 445: 441: 437: 436: 435: 434: 427: 426: 425: 424: 418: 414: 410: 406: 402: 398: 394: 390: 386: 383: 382: 381: 380: 377: 373: 369: 365: 364: 360: 358: 354: 350: 346: 343: 341: 337: 333: 329: 326: 325: 320: 316: 312: 308: 304: 301: 300: 298: 294: 290: 286: 281: 278: 274: 270: 266: 261: 260: 259: 258: 254: 250: 246: 242: 232: 228: 225: 222: 218: 214: 210: 207: 204: 201: 198: 195: 192: 189: 186: 182: 179: 178:Find sources: 174: 170: 166: 163: 157: 153: 149: 145: 140: 136: 131: 127: 123: 119: 115: 114: 110: 107: 104: 100: 97: 95: 92: 90: 87: 86: 85: 83: 78: 71: 68: 66: 65: 62: 57: 55: 51: 44: 42: 38: 33: 27: 26: 19: 604: 602: 581: 542: 515: 384: 362: 361: 344: 327: 302: 238: 226: 220: 212: 205: 199: 193: 187: 177: 164: 75: 49: 47: 31: 28: 393:News.com.au 363:Weak Delete 203:free images 512:WP:ORGCRIT 305:Thank you 245:WP:ORGCRIT 609:talk page 586:Bookscale 549:Bookscale 498:Bookscale 458:Bookscale 407:(again), 349:Bookscale 328:Weak keep 241:WP:BEFORE 37:talk page 611:or in a 582:Commment 569:Meticulo 563:Rockphed 520:Rockphed 483:Rockphed 444:Meticulo 419:(again). 401:ABC News 385:Comment: 368:Rockphed 332:Meticulo 307:Meticulo 162:View log 103:glossary 39:or in a 543:Comment 440:Dentons 417:The AFR 209:WP refs 197:scholar 135:protect 130:history 80:New to 54:Yunshui 181:Google 139:delete 118:Gadens 70:Gadens 429:keep. 224:JSTOR 185:books 169:Stats 156:views 148:watch 144:links 16:< 590:talk 573:talk 524:talk 516:Keep 502:talk 487:talk 462:talk 448:talk 415:and 372:talk 353:talk 345:Keep 336:talk 315:talk 293:talk 273:talk 253:talk 239:Per 217:FENS 191:news 152:logs 126:talk 122:edit 50:keep 231:TWL 160:– ( 592:) 575:) 545:: 526:) 518:. 504:) 489:) 464:) 450:) 411:, 399:, 395:, 391:, 374:) 355:) 338:) 317:) 295:) 287:. 275:) 267:. 255:) 247:. 211:) 154:| 150:| 146:| 142:| 137:| 133:| 128:| 124:| 52:. 588:( 571:( 565:: 561:@ 558:: 554:@ 551:: 547:@ 522:( 500:( 485:( 460:( 446:( 370:( 351:( 334:( 313:( 291:( 271:( 251:( 235:) 227:· 221:· 213:· 206:· 200:· 194:· 188:· 183:( 175:( 172:) 165:· 158:) 120:( 105:) 101:( 60:水

Index

Knowledge:Articles for deletion
talk page
deletion review
Yunshui


10:30, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
Gadens

Articles for deletion
How to contribute
Introduction to deletion process
Guide to deletion
glossary
Help, my article got nominated for deletion!
Gadens
edit
talk
history
protect
delete
links
watch
logs
views
View log
Stats
Google
books
news

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.