Template:Did you know nominations/Wood Law Firm

Nominated article deleted (Articles for deletion/Wood Law Firm)

Wood Law Firm

 * ... that Wood Law Firm was part of a group that attempted to broker a $10 million USD consultancy deal with deceased Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi?
 * Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Henry W. Marshall

Created by Arciejacob (talk). Nominated by Tikuko (talk) at 19:46, 16 July 2013 (UTC).


 * Symbol possible vote.svg New Enough, long enough. QPQ done. But some quality problems. 1. As the Did you know/Supplementary guidelines specify a good rule of thumb is to have an inline citation every paragraph.  The first paragraph under History needs to have a citation. 2. The hook is not verified in the article.  The NY Times article says that Randall K. Wood was part of the partnership which attempted to work out the consultancy deal, but it does not indicate that the firm was involved. The relevant section from the NY Times article is "The other American partners were Neil S. Alpert, who had worked for the Republican National Committee and the pro-Israel lobbying group the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, and Randell K. Wood, a Kansas City, Mo., lawyer who has represented Libyan officials and organizations since the 1980s." 3. Some of the claims are not supported in sources. For example, "Despite the fact that United Nations economic sanctions and the NATO bombing strikes were taking place the attempt to provide Gaddafi with an exit route to a safe Arabic country never materialized because the pro-Gaddafi sympathizers could not obtain the Treasury Department license needed to obtain a monetary payment from Libya" Neither the NY Times article nor Huffington Post, and please correct me, talk about his exit route to a safe Arabic country but instead a "safe transition of power" and neither says that the Treasury Department prevented payment.  Instead, NYTimes says that Libyan officials said the proposal was rejected.  4. Notability does not appear clear at this point.  The only discussion of the Firm itself is from the Kansas City Star article that is from the website of the firm.  I think, based upon the sources, that American Action Group would be notable (this is the main focus of all three sources), and Randall Wood might be notable, but the law firm itself has little independent sources.  If these were fixed I would ask a second reviewer to focus on BLP issues of neutrality.  Right now, it seems a no.  I will follow this and reassess if changes are made. AbstractIllusions (talk) 01:26, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Pending deletion discussion on the page. AbstractIllusions (talk) 12:53, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, okay. I didn't see any glaring problems with it when I initially read it. I'm going to go take a long stare at WP:BLP and slap myself a couple times. Can I withdraw this? -- T K K  bark !  00:01, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * No slapping is necessary at all. It is great that you found something in new page patrol that you nominated; and that activity deserves its own barnstar! Maybe this didn't work this time, but that's probably a good thing for the overall project.  AbstractIllusions (talk) 11:59, 20 July 2013 (UTC)


 * TKK, to answer your question, you can certainly withdraw this nomination whenever you like. For the time being, the nomination is on hold because of the AfD nomination, and will only become active again if the article is retained. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:50, 26 July 2013 (UTC)