Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/One Essex Court

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 keep. → Call me Hahc21 04:24, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One Essex Court

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

Clearly just promotional material for a business. Would have listed it for speedy deletion under WP:G11, but it survived that process in 2010 somehow. Richard75 (talk) 19:21, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Passes WP:ORG as one of UK's most notable and widely covered chambers.► Philg88 ◄ ^talk 08:12, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: One of the leading chambers in London so no justification for deleting it. The other top chambers all have pages, see Blackstone Chambers, Brick Court Chambers, Essex Court Chambers and Fountain Court Chambers. If you want to improve it and make it less promotional you could add details of members, recent cases and news articles AJ (talk) 09:35, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is a separate issue. I'm not saying it's not notable, but that's no answer to whether the article is merely self-promotional or not. As for "fix it yourself," the problem with this article was first flagged up four years ago, so the article creator has had enough time to fix it -- why do you think it is now my responsibility all of a sudden? You fix it yourself. Richard75 (talk) 15:21, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I've added some information and references, which provide some further perspective on the chambers. I don't see how you can say the article is purely self-promotional - it lists several straightforward facts such as how many members it has, how many silks and what the pupillage award is - all the sort of information someone may want to know about it. Really there's no justification for deleting this entry and I can't see why you want to. AJ (talk) 21:08, 13 March 2014 (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.