Talk:Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Feel free to help me tune up this page before the end of the VfD process. 128.122.91.174 3 July 2005 18:02 (UTC)

[edit] Vote for Deletion

This article survived a Vote for Deletion, with a decision to keep and cleanup. It has correspondingly been sent to cleanup. The VfD discussion may be found here. -Splash 01:02, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

This site reads like a brouchure. I'm surprised a big-dog firm like this has no wikipedia attention.

This site is too + vely biased. Should be deleted. Apologies for raising the request again.

Does the author of the above line have a chip on her/his shoulder? The entries for peer firms are no better.

Some agent for the firm continues to delete section detailing the firm's negative publicity. These developments are well-documented and are a part of the public record. This section should be left intact.

Just a regular reader here: boy someone really wants you to think this firm is 'presitgious', this word is in the intro and the body. Such sophistry is so yuck. Get real people. Wiki shouldn't be for advertising. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.82.9.57 (talk) 18:29, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I object to the latest mark for deletion - this is a very interesting firm and I think it's worth a decent article. I'll step up and edit it, starting over the next few days. Antinomy123 16:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and by the way, I'm new to editing, but not new to Wikipedia. Any help I can get (especially from those with previously expressed objections to the content) would be greatly appreciated! Thanks Antinomy123 18:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

By the way, i know I've been silent on this page for a bit. I'm doing some research and will start making changes soon. Antinomy123 18:37, 9 November 2007 (UTC)