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 speedy delete. G11 DGG ( talk ) 18:01, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cambridge Securities[edit]

Cambridge Securities (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)

Fails WP:GNG/WP:CORP. None of the sources cited mentions the firm, passing mentions in others regarding a lawsuit are carefully omitted (e.g. here). Kleuske (talk) 12:59, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:39, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:39, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as non-notable spam. Concur with nom on sourcing as well. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:08, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment "representing parties on both sides" (Kleuske's missing cite in Law360) is legal malpractice nearly as bad as it gets – spending the client's escrow might be worse. If the article has been wikiwashed this badly, then a radical overhaul might be needed. ☆ Bri (talk) 06:56, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete doesn't meet our notability guidelines. jcc (tea and biscuits) 23:28, 9 November 2017 (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.