- 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. JForget 00:32, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- ACS:Law (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
As I mentioned on the article's talk page, when one takes a closer look at the references, there is a single BBC link, but the rest doesn't confirm any particular notability - simply because only two other references, torrentfreak and beingthreatened, mention this particular firm. These two are blogs though and I won't consider them as primary sources. All other references deal with legal aspects of file sharing or with Davenport Lyons instead of ACS. So to sum it up, one BBC news appearance is not sufficient to speak of notability. De728631 (talk) 15:05, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
ACS:Law have far more notoriety. A quick search will demonstrate coverage a lot wider than purely the BBC. Which? (a large consumer organisation in the UK) have covered the issues several times, and the cases of Gill and Ken Murdoch made headlines in most major news outlets. Additionally ACS:Law have history on notable cases outside filesharing including the 'sex on the beach' Dubai case. The article should stay, but it needs a greater range of sources and more information added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.137.8 (talk) 22:58, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Keep. I saw the BBC article listed on Google News UK's front page today, so I came to Wikipedia to find out who ACS:Law are. We might not know much about them, but they are in the public eye now.--Farry (talk) 08:59, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Comment. Here's a bunch of references beyond the BBC article. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]. I think that they're all Internet based "tabloids" except for T3 which also has a print edition. Some of those sites have blogs, but these references were written by staff writers. So not much yet, but it's a step up from blogs.--Farry (talk) 10:18, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
- Keep. Saw them first on BBC, googled them and read The Register's article, then came to see if there was info here. I would say they are notable, and likely to become more so in January 2010. 81.147.32.248 (talk) 10:46, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
- Keep. There's three mentions on the BBC (one for the Dubai case and two relating to actions against suspected illegal filesharers) various mentions in other papers relating to Dubai, another article on Which?, one on The Register, and the one on T3 along with the various web based 'tabloids'. I'm not the original creator of the article but I am new to Wikipedia so if I'm missing things or misinterpreting rules please let me know. Furtled (talk) 00:45, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Keep - there is more than enough evidence out there to show these are a real company and the tactics are well documented http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/198192-acs-law-73.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.87.191 (talk) 16:26, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
- 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.