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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:30, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pallett Valo LLP (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Only source on this article is a LinkedIn page. Just a typical mid-sized law firm, and I don't see any indication of what makes it notable. My searches turned up no reliable coverage of the firm. Firm doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:CORP. FuriouslySerene (talk) 14:58, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep - I would really love t =o give this one a strong keep but since the author has not cited the source that states It is the largest law firm in Peel I will go for a weak keep. Aha... (talk) 15:29, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Even if there was a reliable source for the claim, I don't think being the largest law firm of one of the many regions outside of Toronto confers inherent notability (see WP:ORGSIG). FuriouslySerene (talk) 18:45, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no indication of notability. Neither WP:NCORP nor WP:GNG is met, and being the largest law firm in a municipality is not even a credible claim to notability. --bonadea contributions talk
• Delete While the firm is briefly mentioned in a variety of sources, the in-depth coverage isn't there. Nwlaw63 (talk) 16:04, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - just not seeing the amount of significant (rather than trivial) sources required by WP:NCORP to show notability. JMWt (talk) 16:20, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 21:36, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:00, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:01, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and I may've simply PRODed this as it's easily applicable, no signs of any better for a local law company. SwisterTwister talk 06:52, 3 February 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.