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 NO CONSENSUS. Rationale: The closing editor does not find it to be conclusively shown that the topic is non-notable. Opinions about the weight of existing sources establishing notability are evenly divided. ·Maunus·ƛ· 21:09, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

White Dalton Motorcycle Solicitors[edit]

WP:ADVERT. Fails notability. There is one Times Online article that briefly talks up this company, and their name is mentioned in a bare handful of news articles reporting particular legal cases, but none give enough reason for notability. Dbratland (talk) 19:12, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:56, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:29, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I couldn't find coverage via Google News or Google Books either. tedder (talk) 00:31, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Times Online article is sufficient for notability. One really good source is enough.DGG (talk) 05:04, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this article is little more than a public relations exercise. A mere metention in two news stories is not evividence of notability. There is no significant coverage to indicate that this firm of solicitors has participated in a notable court cases, nor has it any notable staff or partners, nor is the firm itself notable in any way (size, history, development, campaigning or research), and falls well short of the requirements of WP:CORP. Articles based purely on news coverage fall outside the scope of Wikipedia, especially news stories which are promotional in tone and content. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:31, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The Times Online article doesn't really provide significant coverage IMO, it just cheers them for having a cute name and a nice looking webiste. Other than that, fails WP:ORG. Ray^Talk 21:03, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Found two articles of coverage relating via Google News. Notable with respect to its specialist and unique field of practice in serving an often misuderstood and maligned group of road users. To quote WP:ORG "Large organizations are likely to have more readily available verifiable information...smaller organizations can be notable...arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations" Motorbike1 (talk) 11:21, 05 August 2009 (GMT)

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.