Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Russell Jones & Walker (2)

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 Delete.--Húsönd 02:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Russell Jones & Walker

Russell Jones & Walker (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View log)

The previous AfD left the way open for a repost. Is this now sufficiently unspammy? Personally I would be happier if the article had not been written by a newbie called RussellJones. -- RHaworth 18:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment, regardless of quality of the article, there are no reliable sources presented to demonstrate notability. --Dhartung | Talk 21:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - This article provides no verifiable sources to establish notability. Strong indication that user:RussellJones is abusing Wikipedia for promotional purposes. Shaundakulbara 06:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Though the article seems reasonable, there is no attempt to demonstrate that the subject satisfies WP:CORP. If one was made, I would reconsider. CiaranG 09:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete No assertion of notability. The JPS^{talk to me} 21:08, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep This firm is very often in the news, as demonstrated by a BBC News search. [1]. --Oakshade 03:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 00:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom MiracleMat 01:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete unless notability can be confirmed as per WP:CORP, and even if so it still needs a major rewrite. Krimpet 02:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete — Since when has vanity pages been allowed? Bushcarrot (Talk·Desk) 02:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I have never heard of this and try to find it in the search, where are the sources, so delete Pernambuco 02:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Pernambuco  Tuvok^^{Talk|Desk|Contribs}   03:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unless sourced More news coverage than the average UK law firm, and it might be more notable than some others in Category:United Kingdom-based law firms, but no verifiable evidence that it meets WP:CORP. Delete unless it's sourced by the end of this AFD. Mereda 08:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. MER-C 09:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Reads like an advert and generally lacks notability.Tellyaddict 16:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete WP:CORP. TonyTheTiger 20:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as a self-promoting article without evidence of notability... would be a strong speedy candidate. -FisherQueen (Talk) 22:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete. Vanity Smurf strikes again. Seriously. Vanity pages? STILL? Philippe Beaudette 00:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• sources I suggested previously that some actual material on notable cases they have engaged in, with sources showing its notable beyond the common work of the profession,(i.e., not just court transcripts or listings) would help the article. If thee is, this is the time to put it in. Most professionals do keep track of discussions of their work in general media. The way to keep it is not just to delete the spam, but add something generally notable. DGG 01:53, 1 February 2007 (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.