Talk:Alcalde and Fay

I have marked the article for proposed deletion because the firm on its own is not notable. It is but a footnote in a different article. A footnote which in the end doesn't bear any relevance as the other article would stand just as well if the firm was not mentioned. This particular article can also be seen as an attempt at self-promotion in the any publicity is good publicity vein. Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I dont agree. The firm itself is not insignificant. It has access to high office and elementary knowlege on wikipedia should be available.  I suggest keeping it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.178.97.83 (talk) 17:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I was fascinated to learn more about the firm now that it has come to light in the McCain campaign. I was rather hoping it was linked into a directory of Washington lobbyist firms so that I could read up on each one of them. Lobby firms wield much power for their size, and this sway makes each one significant. Wmjuntunen (talk) 20:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree either. I think we need an objective bio of the Firm Nolawip

I also concur that this article stub must REMAIN and be expanded. We want to know exactly what kind of lobbying goes on, who does it, and if the allegations are true against Mr McCain what the lobbying may desire to get out of him. Even withouth the McCain story, lobby info with members and activities are important and worthy of a encyclopedic entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hassan kachal (talk • contribs) 00:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

If the article is to remain than it needs to be written up properly in an unbiased way and with the current controversy in a subsection. Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:13, 25 February 2008 (UTC)