Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gottbetter & Partners

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 of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:45, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gottbetter & Partners

Nomination: nn advertising and copyright violation from firm's site --User:Chaser (T, C, e) 20:10, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete No reason given for notability, Olayak has admitted to writing it for the company [1]. In my opinion this sort of thing should be strongly discouraged. Mak (talk) 20:40, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

• DONT DELETE I wrote this as a courtesy for the company because the managing partner is the Mann Report's Hedge Fund manager of the year and has been written up in several financial papers and law journals. I will cite sources if this will allow the page to remain. I was NOT commissioned to add it, but I do have permission from the company. Also, this firm has created a process called the "GPO" (which is a trademarked procedure- completely unique) which differentiates it from other firms. Also, if this is a corporate "vanity site", then arent all articles about actors, musicians, celebrities, and fashion companies also "vanity sites"? What about celebrities with no known occupation that are famous anyway (such as Kato Kaylin). Would an article about him be a "vanity site"? Another thing to note- look under "law firms" on wikipedia. If you look at the list under "united states" there are several law firms listed, and many of them have articles on wikipedia. Are those also all considered "vanity sites"? What regulation says that those articles can stay and this one cannot? Olayak 21:43, 11 May 2006 (UTC)k

• Delete - Wikipedia is not free web hosting. If these lawyers want a website, they can make on. Olayak, if there are other non-notable lawfirms on Wikipedia, nominate them for deletion. BigDT 22:25, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

• DONT DELETE this is not a website, nor does it try to be one. It explains mostly the unique "GPO" procedure. Look under "law firms" in wikipedia. Are you suggesting that every one of those firms should be deleted? There are at least 100 from around the world. Also, this company has been written up many times in the media, does that not merit an article in wikipedia? How often must a company or person be written up before someone will approve its article? Once again, the firm did NOT ask me to write this article. I thought it should be added and gained the permission of the company to write about it.Olayak 22:31, 11 May 2006 (UTC)k (Second Olayak Vote)

• Delete per nom. Any notability beyond a typical law firm is not evident upon reading the article. Remember, Wikipedia is not a directory.--Marysunshine 22:51, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

• DONT DELETE Please read the section on the GPO. It is a trademarked and unique process and has been discussed in several financial venues and journals. I still dont understand why all the other firms get to stay and this one which describes a unique process of handeling mergers and aquisitions is not.Olayak 23:07, 11 May 2006 (UTC)k (Third Olayak Vote)
• Delete, wipe your feet before you step on the astroturf or you might slip. Badgerpatrol 23:41, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all non-Olayak comments above -- Hirudo 01:16, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as above. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:22, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, delete, delete NN, copyvio--Deville (Talk) 02:38, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Nothing in the article suggests that this law firm is sufficiently notable to have its own page in an international encyclopaedia. I agree that there are some other pages on law firms which should be deleted too. But that's not a good reason for keeping this one. Zaxem 05:13, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Question: Where do law firms fit? Under WP:CORP? I was about to vote delete but then I looked at some of the others, many of which are just as bad. I know, thats no reason for a keep, but what are notability criteria here and why hasn't anyone addressed this? -MrFizyx 06:11, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

It's unclear, though there are a few pages that are helpful. Wikipedia:Notability; checking notability; Deletion precedents; etc. Nothing on seems to be binding policy, but there are plenty of guidelines and essays. --User:Chaser (T, C, e) 06:55, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment Perhaps taking a look through the category linked would be a start on getting rid of what are essentially ads? I checked on at random, it had an importance subst on it added half a year ago. Were it that important, someone should have indicted its importance by now... --ES2 13:44, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete If this GPO process is so unique and useful, that should be an article, not this ad. SteveHopson 13:02, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable. Other non-notable pages are not reason enough for a keep. Rather, they're reason for a number of AfD nominations. --ES2 13:44, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as A7. Note to Olayak: One vote per user, please? ~Kylu (u|t) 03:58, 13 May 2006 (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.