Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Schwegman, Lundberg, Woessner & Kluth, P.A.

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 13:36, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Schwegman, Lundberg, Woessner & Kluth, P.A.[edit]

Vanity and promotional. Article created by Mlprater which seems to be Matthew L. Prater, an employee of the law firm [1]. Edcolins 12:13, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete nn. Xcali 14:17, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep IMO, vanity doesn't apply to real world, brick & mortar businesses. They're either notable enough, or they're not. This one is, by my judgement; two offices, 60 attorneys, . I don't like the probable connection between the original author and the firm, but as long as it's written NPOV, I don't see a problem. --Unfocused 14:34, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • 60 employees or attorneys in a firm do not necessarily make it notable. The supermarket around the corner might well have more than 60 employees and most are not notable. The question should be "Has this law firm achieved anything particular, which makes it worth being integrated into an encyclopedia?" Nothing in the article indicates that something particular was achieved. Wikipedia should probably not become a business directory or the like. --Edcolins 15:21, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
      • Comment 60 employees in a supermarket won't have Juris Doctor or Master of Law degrees, now, will they? I find this firm notable enough. I respect that you don't, but your comparison isn't a balanced one. --Unfocused 22:11, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. Well 60-lawyer litigation firms aren't usually very big. This is a pretty lean firm, they don't do litigation. Their claim to fame, for me, is their ratings, which are high. They're definitely notable within their field of patent prosecution--dotting i's, crossing t's and pushing patent applications through for their clients. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:51, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment Have a look at what Tony Sidaway found. They're clearly at the top of their specialized upmarket, big money field. They certainly are more notable than I thought. --Unfocused 03:45, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I maintain my position. Being rated number one in a specialized ranking is not an achievement in the context of an "encyclopedia". An encyclopedia is a compendium of synthetic knowledge susceptible to be useful in the context of education (παιδεια = "education"). The lawyers at the firm are probably doing a pretty good job, but they are just doing their job. The article does not indicate any significant achievement. A definitive no no. --Edcolins 15:49, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
    • That is special pleading. We have grounds for inclusion and they emphatically do not include any educational requirement. Such grounds as do exist have been amply satisfied. You just made up the idea that there should be some educational function to including an item in the encyclopedia. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:21, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please do not write as if you were representing the whole wikipedian community. As a wikipedian, I also claim to be part of the "we" you refer to. In the absence of any clear boundary between what should be part of wikipedia and what shouldn't, I find it reasonable to refer to the common meaning of "encyclopedia". From what I read from Wikipedia is not a vanity press, wikipedia policy especially refers to the origin of the word "encyclopedia" with a specific mention of the word "education". I do not find unreasonable to interpret this as "We have grounds for inclusion and they implicitly include an educational requirement (in the broad sense in which this term is used)." You will probably argue that the sentence "[Wikipedia] should contain only material that some definable group of people might want to know" follows. This is however a cyclical criterion since the verb "know" should be construed in view of the meaning of encyclopedia, otherwise tomorrow's weather, dictionary definitions and any information found in a business directory would fall within "material that some definable group of people might want to know". --Edcolins 17:12, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, no assertion of notability. Frjwoolley 15:39, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without further indication of achievements/notability. Being among the first patent lawyers in intellectual property is well and good, but it's rather meaningless (except for advertising), if they haven't actually done anything significant. Geogre 18:03, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
N.b. I've checked again, and the article still doesn't provide the statistics or cases that would make them notable. Please, I want to change my vote. I think they probably are notable, but so far the article doesn't provide any information on that. Geogre 15:02, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Geogre, the article does now contain a reference in a trade journal showing the notability of this firm. You're now asking someone to go off and do what would be original research in order to make a decision for himself (rather than reporting a source in the field) on whether the firm merits its clear notability. No dice. We can do without your vote to keep. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:30, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The internet seems to indicate that Woessner in particular is a BSD in the field. Pcb21| Pete 15:43, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no evidence of notability. --W(t) 21:31, 2005 May 27 (UTC)
    • Keep, they do appear to be one of the big US IP law firms. --W(t) 02:42, 2005 May 28 (UTC)
      • They are not a big IP law firm. As Tony Sidaway put it above, "Well 60-lawyer litigation firms aren't usually very big. (...)" Each and every IP firm could most probably be rated in one of these obscure magazine ratings which abound. --Edcolins 08:44, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
      • I think you've misread me, which is my fault. I said that 60-lawyer litigation firms aren't big, but I have remarked that this firm doesn't do litigation. This is a lean firm, undoubtedly, but one that is big in its field. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:47, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Rated (2005) #1 US patent lawyers for chemical patents, #2 for computer and software patents, #3 for electrical patents, #2 for medical patents. These guys are heavy hitters. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:43, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Interesting, but I'd like a little more information on who PatentRatings LLC are, apart from their connection to LexisNexis. There are thousands of organisations that rate companies for promotional purposes only. Anyway, if they're such a wonderful law firm, I'm sure they've done some very high profile cases. Can anyone find any of those? That would certainly convince me of their notability. --W(t) 00:35, 2005 May 28 (UTC)
    They're not litigators, they just file claims with the patent office. I take your point about PatentRatings, but we don't evaluate sources in that way. I've given a reference in an IP trade journal that cites PatentRatings as a source, and clearly the firm Schwegman, Lundberg, Woessner & Kluth, P.A. is (rightly or wrongly) regarded as a major force in patent prosecution. That is all we can do as an encyclopedia. Let's not get dragged into OR just to establish whether the IP trade journals are being misled. The company is unequivocally notable because it has been noted by a relevant trade journal as a leader in the field. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 02:33, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't care if the IP trade journals are being misled, merely whether they're notable. I was mainly looking at the marketwire link, but the IP law & business one is a lot more credible yes. Fair enough. --W(t) 02:42, 2005 May 28 (UTC)
  • Delete, just not notable enough. Megan1967 03:29, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep highly rated in the field of US patents. Kappa 06:06, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. as per Kappa. JuntungWu 10:11, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • If this were a computer games company of similar stature, it wouldn't get listed here.
    • That doesn't mean it shouldn't. --Edcolins 08:46, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Easily passes external verfiability thresholds, obvious keep. Pcb21| Pete 12:44, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep based on Tony Sidaway's research. Uppland 17:03, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Insert "slippery slope" argument here, followed by "camel's nose in tent" argument. What prevents hundreds of law firm in the world from each claiming some "remarkable" niche? Maybe it belongs in Who's Who, but probably not Wikipedia. What possible purpose does this article serve that could not be served by a simple external link to the firm's web page, and why would even such a link be acceptable? Lupinelawyer 03:02, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The firm's web page is not likely to be NPOV, editable, or wikilinked. If we apply the Slippery slope argument to this commercial entity, where will it end? Will microsoft be deleted and replaced with an external link? Kappa 21:34, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Niiiice reverse-slippery slope argument, Kappa! :-D -- BD2412 talk 04:19, 2005 Jun 8 (UTC)
  • Keep. Wikipedia is not paper and it is not a traditional encyclopedia. Some people need to open their minds. If Wikipedia is to be the world's foremost compendium of knowledge, it goes without saying (but I'll blabber on anyway) that there will be articles on topics some people do not consider notable. But if there is any topic that anybody might just possibly perhaps someday somehow decide they might just be slightly somewhat kinda interested in, there should be an article here. Nelson Ricardo 18:44, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Notable Law Firm. Klonimus 08:33, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I couldn't have put it better myself. We're supposed to produce neutral, verifiable information. It's a bit pointless deleting encyclopedia entries that provide that. It's a waste of our time even considering doing that. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:55, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Concurr I'm getting so tired of VfD being used for emergency cleanup. VfD is about is the subject of an article is encyclopedic. A 60 person law firm that is considdered important in the world of patent litigation is notable, in a way that a 2 man personal injury firm is not. Klonimus 09:43, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • So, given this support, we should start substubs for every possible law firm in the world that might be considered notable in some way! Largest five firms in any of 80 different kinds of law, for each city/state/country, biggest wins/losses in each type of law and in every court, oldest firms, newest firms, longest names, biggest salaries, biggest idiots, etc. Of course, because they are "notable", the articles will be immune from VfD. Lupinelawyer 22:47, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes. If you want to. That's the beauty of Wikipedia. Stuff only appears here if someone wants it to. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:09, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Sixty lawyers is a good size for a specialty firm - they probably employ hundreds of people all-told (in addition to the lawyers, there will be plenty of secretaries, office managers, accountants, investigators, etc.). Also, Lexis rankings are probably a very reliable measure, as they are one of the 2 big legal research providers. -- BD2412 talk 20:06, 2005 Jun 1 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Schwegman,_Lundberg,_Woessner_%26_Kluth,_P.A.&oldid=1142231032"