Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dolin Thomas & Solomon
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 after a rewrite. Daniel.Bryant 02:22, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dolin Thomas & Solomon[edit]
Non-notable, advert. Cordless Larry 22:29, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep
Weak keepDeleteA few lawyers directory listings and a little trade press, but nothing to assert notability with. Fails WP:Vanity at the very least.Fiddle Faddle 22:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]- A great deal of work is going into the article to assert notability. It is not yet "not an advert", but it is moving that way. I see every indication of this work continuing and have left encouragement on the author's talk page, Sufficient work has done for me to alter my opinion to reflect a Weak Keep (above) Fiddle Faddle 14:52, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm good with this. Changed opinion to Keep. Fiddle Faddle 15:02, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- A great deal of work is going into the article to assert notability. It is not yet "not an advert", but it is moving that way. I see every indication of this work continuing and have left encouragement on the author's talk page, Sufficient work has done for me to alter my opinion to reflect a Weak Keep (above) Fiddle Faddle 14:52, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I politely disagree, Nixon Peabody and Harris Beach both have entries with the history of their law firms. Please let me know if there is something specific that should be changed. Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dts1234 (talk • contribs) .
- Polite disagreement is always pleasant. Please look at the article as it stands now. There are now several banners reflecting what required to be done in order to allow it to remain, assuming that DT&S is of itself notable and deserving of an entry. Each article is freestanding and there are no precedents set by other articles. If the others are non notable as well then they should be so nominated for deletion. Fiddle Faddle 12:33, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I made some changes to the Wikipedia entry for DTS - please let me know if is now acceptable or if it needs any other changes. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dts1234 (talk • contribs)
- I made some more changes to the entry for DTS (9/28/06). I was able to find the tv broadcast, but the rest of the newspaper articles require a subscription. I fixed the footnote format issue and I also deleted a couple of words in the body of the text to try to make it sound more neutral. Please let me know if anyone else has any other suggestions. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dts1234 (talk • contribs)
- Comment Unless anyone disagrees, may we close this as Speedy Keep? Fiddle Faddle 14:43, 29 September 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.