User talk:Richardbrink

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] De Brauw Blackstone Westbroek N.V.

Hi - the company may well be notable, but unfortunately as soon as I see a sentence like "The firm offers a combination of a strong corporate and finance practice and a centre of excellence for litigation, believing it provides the ingredients for a unique service to its clients." I'd have to say it crosses the line into Blatant Advertising. I will, however, restore the article to a user subpage so that you can rewrite it if necessary. ELIMINATORJR 16:02, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] De Brauw Blackstone Westbroek

A tag has been placed on De Brauw Blackstone Westbroek, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 11, as well as the guidelines on spam.

If you can indicate why the subject of this article is not blatant advertising, you may contest the tagging. To do this, please add {{hangon}} on the top of the article and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would help make it encyclopedic, as well as adding any citations from reliable sources to ensure that the article will be verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Blanchardb-MeMyEarsMyMouth-timed 16:22, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] response

I think , , that the source is reliable for the purpose of providing this sort of information, since it is edited and widely relied on in the business, and the information given there is sufficient to show at least minimal notability. Any assertion of notability prevents a speedy. There would in fact be a good case for notability , given that [1] since "Almost half of the top 100 companies in the Netherlands choose De Brauw Blackstone Westbroek as their lead law firm (KSU)," and you assert they show it no. 1 in many fields, and that ranking is in my opinion usable. It would be an interesting question at AfD, but might well be discussed first at the Reliable Sources noticeboard, WP:RSN. -- but the article is copied largely or entirely from that website-- so it must be deleted as a copyright violation.

Richard, go re-write the meaning from scratch in your own words and submit it. And add some press references from outside-- surely they have been in some notable acquisition of lawsuit that was reported. Online or print is OK, though online is better -- Dutch is fine, if an English translation of a key phrase to establish notability is provided. DGG (talk) 18:08, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Speedy deletion of De Brauw Blackstone Westbroek

A tag has been placed on De Brauw Blackstone Westbroek, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read our the guidelines on spam as well as the Wikipedia:Business' FAQ for more information.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Dougie WII (talk) 19:52, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:3861.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:3861.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 05:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)