Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aluko & Oyebode


 * 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 was delete. Star  Mississippi  17:17, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Aluko & Oyebode

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

promotional article by obvious undeclared coi editor (presumably paid) for the firm. It's a routine lawfirm, and most of the work shown here is just "advised so and so," not notable cases. Almost all the references are from the firm's web site, or are case reports, or mere notices. Part of a promotional effort for one of the firm's principals, see next AfD request.  DGG ( talk ) 19:23, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:41, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:41, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. That means, nothing that relies on company information or announcements or interviews, etc. None of the references in the article meet the criteria, not even close. All of the articles I can find are within the company's echo chamber and I have been unable to find any "Independent Content" as per ORGIND. Topic fails WP:NCORP.  HighKing++ 21:02, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete — Per rationale by  and . Furthermore, the organization is subtly promotional, has 0 encyclopedic value (I’m big on [encyclopedic value]) & to sum it up, the supermajority of the sources used are sub par, so in all, this simply isn’t mainspace worthy. Celestina007 (talk) 10:40, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per DGG and HighKing ,fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:51, 11 December 2021 (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.