Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aelex Partners

Aelex Partners

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Aelex Partners (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)

Nearly identical article to ǼLEX, still no change in notability. Praxidicae (talk) 23:15, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

• Delete not notable Dreamanderson (talk) 14:39, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:55, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:55, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

• Delete — Non notable organization that falls short of WP:NCORP.Celestina007 (talk) 01:30, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

• Keep - It appears that a number of the votes to delete have not even viewed the article or reviewed the references. The issues raised in the first article have been addressed and the subject of the article meets WP:NCORP, because it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable and independent secondary sources. Some of the more notable articles giving significant coverage on the law firm can be found in the Guardian Newspaper here, their work on the takeover of a Nigerian firm by Coca-Cola was also documented in another leading Newspaper, ThisDay here. This is asides the over 20 references cited in the article, which were not in the original article.Ponlegbile (talk) 06:46, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
• Comment - Furthermore, Aelex is one of the few Nigerian legal firms that has been ranked almost annually by the global assessor for legal firms The Legal 500, and this achievement has been reported on in independent sources herePonlegbile (talk) 07:07, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello @Ponlegbile, creating an article for an organization you are affiliated to via employment or receiving a reward for the creation of an article is generally not accepted here & you are starting to appear like you are here to just ensure the creation of this article. Editing Wikipedia is not a means to make wealth for yourself or give your organization a Wikipedia presence for the sake of clout. Celestina007 (talk) 17:41, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

• Delete as corpspam, probable WP:PAID against the WP:TOU. Also, a WP:BEFORE search indicates a dearth of persistent, in-depth coverage in high-quality reliable sources; little more than passing mentions, per WP:ROUTINE coverage of various cases. ——SN54129 08:19, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
• Comment - The Guardian Newspaper, Thisday Newspaper and Business Day are some of the more notable and quality reliable sources of news in Nigeria and these publications have in depth coverage of the subject, which have been cited in the article. I also listed some of the links earlier, which show WP:SIGCOVPonlegbile (talk) 08:38, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
• Delete only trivial coverage. Although The Guardian etc might seem to add notability, and usually those sources would, in this case they don't because what is being covered in the articles is considered coverage by WP:NCORP. Mainly inclusions in lists or winning awards. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:13, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
• Keep - the subject has received significant coverage. The Guardian and This day Newspapers would not report on awards of no significance. Subject at least fits WP:NCORP. Philphleg (talk) 10:34, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
• Delete Trivial coverage, at best. Appears to have been created just to promote, not too spammy, but promotional nonetheless. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 13:46, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
• Comment — @Serial Number 54129, your suspicion on this editor @Ponlegbile being paid to create this article is very much plausible as I don’t understand why they are vehemently defending this article when there are literally infinite other real things to create You’d also notice here that they are also canvassing. Celestina007 (talk) 15:26, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
• Delete. and Salt as advertising for a non-notable firm.. The material would do nicely as a web page for the firm, but not an encyclopedia article. There seem to be no notable cases, no notable members of the firm, a, The references are some of them mere notices, such as [1] where it's a notice of a lecture by someone else merely sponsored by the firm) or their own work, such as [2] but the others are PR slightly disguised as news articles, such as [3] in Business Day, a vehicle for PR like many similarly named papers in other counties, or the announcement of an award that does no confer notability . I don't know it's PAID, but consider the other articles by the contributor, it seems likely--see [4] The Guardian articles are either an announcement of a panel they sponsor, or the announcement of one of the promotional awards. DGG ( talk ) 21:56, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and DGG.  Versace1608  ^{Wanna Talk?} 23:44, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
• Keep as per DGG's assertion that the firm is non-notable with no notable lawyers, a Google search indicates that one of the partners at the firm is a Senior Advocate of Nigeria(SAN), Mrs. Funke Adekoya, that's the highest honour for a Nigerian lawyer, and SAN cannot be described as non-notable. Agreed that some of the references are notices of events, but there are also mentions of their involvements in landmark cases, like the Coca-Colacase and their involvement with Shell Nigeria. There are other references not indicated in the article referring to the firm as notable. The Legal 500 is also not a promotional award.Onyeuwaoma2000 (talk) 08:33, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

• Comment — @Onyeuwaoma2000 you should really quit this meat puppetry whilst no one is really paying attention else you risk getting blocked. This article if I remember correctly was first created by Pastorflex in 2017 and was subsequently sent to an AFD where it was deleted. In this WP:SPI case I opened in 2017:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pastorflex/Archive against both you and the article creator he said you both worked extensively in the creation of this non notable article & Deskana warned you both about such meat puppetry behavior. Oh well now a user named Ponlegbile comes outta the blues to create this article with the same passion as Pastorflex who of course has another brand new SPI case against him opened by another editor handling Nigeria related articles @Versace1608. So in summary; we have yourself, Pastorflex & the mystery “Ponlegbile” advocating in one way or another, for the retention of the article. I mean what are the odds? Celestina007 (talk) 16:19, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:08, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

• Comment-Keep

@celestina007 and everyone, I have read the above back and forth. I am a legal practitioner in Nigeria. I am a Wikipedia contributor too. I have taken the liberty to start a project, to create article on Nigerian Law Firms. I believe this will help subsequent conversation. Also. On Notability, Aelex Partners is a notable Law Firm in my country, it is among the best of the best. The assertions above, about the personalities in the firm are true. And as a matter of cause, I will take the liberty of reviewing the said article. I do not work at this firm, my firm is an emerging one, but, I can categorically say, if Aelex does not qualify for Notability, then no firm is qualified for being notable in Nigeria, on Wikipedia. As I have earlier stated.I will try to review this article. 

Currently, I am currently curating contents on the article on Nigerian Firms. I will need all the help I can get.

Ogele (talk) 09:30, 5 May 2020 (UTC)