Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Foley & Lardner
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Foley & Lardner[edit]
- Delete: Hard to tell from the article which is all spammy now and lacks secondary sources, but it appears to be non-notable. If the spamminess is distracting, also look at this version. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:15, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The article represents that this is the 22nd-largest law firm in the USA and 31st-largest in the world, with annual revenues over $600 million and almost 1,000 attorneys. This firm would appear to be able to meet WP:CORP; even if the article has problems now, they can be resolved without needing to seek deletion. --Metropolitan90 18:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- But spamminess to the point of needing a full rewrite is now grounds for speedy deletion per WP:CSD#G11. If there wasn't so much history to the article, I would have deleted it without thinking and been within my rights. Rewinding back to the other revision I referred to would be better but that one is still just unreferenced praise. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:59, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I have removed the content that most looked like it might be considered "spammy". --Metropolitan90 23:38, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- But spamminess to the point of needing a full rewrite is now grounds for speedy deletion per WP:CSD#G11. If there wasn't so much history to the article, I would have deleted it without thinking and been within my rights. Rewinding back to the other revision I referred to would be better but that one is still just unreferenced praise. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:59, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The firm may or may not be worthy of an article, but this article isn't worthy of being kept. Fan-1967 19:21, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep worthy of an article, this can be cleaned up. Carlossuarez46 00:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. A Google News Archive search shows nearly 6,700 results [1] so there are plenty of reliable sources to allow a rewrite. Capitalistroadster 04:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep major law firm. Sofixit. - crz crztalk 04:48, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep but clean-up. As it stands now, seems kind of stubby. 38.100.34.2 00:25, 25 November 2006 (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.