Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coddan


 * 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 of the debate was deletable spam that's already been deleted once. DS 19:12, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Coddan
Pure promo about a British or Irish law firm. If there was any reason it was notable, it would be in the article. Daniel Case 17:25, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Looks like quite a big company. Article needs radical cleanup, that is true, but it's not a reason for deletion. Grafikm_fr 17:54, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete as ad spam. Could we please do a little bit of research before taking an article's bald assertion of notability on faith?  In point of fact, this firm has 33 unique G-hits, and each and every one of them is promotional spam; there isn't a single independent citation.  Further, Martindale-Hubbell has never heard of it, and in a professional incorporation firm that's not only deeply troubling, I'd bet ten bucks against a nickel it's a scammer. RGTraynor 19:50, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete slowly per RGTraynor. (There is no applicable speedy criterion). Henning Makholm 22:16, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete: fails WP:CORP. --Hetar 22:48, 18 April 2006 (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.