Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP AND CLEANUP. Even discounting anon IP's this is 4k-1d taking nominator as a delete. Sent to cleanup. -Splash 00:59, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison

A law firm. Reads like advertising to me. Although they claim to be a major, worldwide firm, notability needs to be proven. Hedley 3 July 2005 17:36 (UTC)

• Send for cleanup. Google returns 28,000 results. [1] - Mailer Diablo 3 July 2005 17:37 (UTC)
• Strong Keep + Cleanup. Definitely notable, but article needs revision. --Alex12 3 3 July 2005 17:40 (UTC)
• Keep [Author] As above, and thus as notable as any law firm. 128.122.91.174 3 July 2005 17:41 (UTC)
• Keep but cleanup It's certainy notable. Some of the text is taken right off of the 'pro-bono' page of the corporate webstite, though, so we do have some copyvio issues with the text as-is. That also explains why it reads like marketng materials.Tobycat 3 July 2005 17:42 (UTC)
  • Well, I just paraphrased a little to get it started. Any help cleaning it up is greatly appreciated. 128.122.91.174 3 July 2005 17:47 (UTC)
  • Oh, and I didn't expect it to get listed in VfD in the two minutes between pasting in copy and paraphrasing it. 128.122.91.174 3 July 2005 17:50 (UTC)
    • A valid complaint - don't recommend an article as Vfd when it's still in the process of being edited... --80.139.211.173 3 July 2005 21:31 (UTC)
  • I've started some cleanup efforts. 128.122.91.174 3 July 2005 17:57 (UTC)
• Comment: When listing a page for deletion, please ensure that you follow the procedure at the bottom of Wikipedia:Votes for deletion. --Alex12 3 3 July 2005 17:48 (UTC)
• Keep but cleanup. It's a perfectly notable firm, so there's no reason to delete the article. I agree that it still reads as advertising, and could do with wikifying, but that can happen. We can cleanup the article rather than delete it. UkPaolo 3 July 2005 19:27 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup. Notable firm involved in notable case Brown v. Board of Education 136.153.2.2 4 July 2005 00:11 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.