Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colling Gilbert Wright & Carter


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 03:20, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Colling Gilbert Wright &

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not notable as I understand it, similar to the Melvin Wright discussion, including same authors. Bjornte (talk) 10:36, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Maybe delete for now as although my usual searches found some results (News, Books, browser and highbeam), there wasn't anything convincing to suggest better. SwisterTwister   talk  06:27, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95  Talk   14:35, 9 September 2015 (UTC) I don't see anything overly promotional with this entry. Well cited and sources point off site to actual articles about the firm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.185.109.71 (talk) 21:13, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes but keep to mind there could be better coverage and press releases are usually only used if there is no other solution as PR is simply self-generated content from the company themselves usually promotional and otherwise unusable. SwisterTwister   talk  22:26, 15 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete blatantly arcvertising their services, ("Attorneys at the firm accept a wide range of cases, including personal injury, wrongful death, medical malpractice, product defect, workers’ compensation, and securities and stockbroker fraud." That's a rather narrow range, when you take a close look at it...), no in-depth coverage anywhere, the sources are all connected to the firm, directories, press releases and a few trivial mentions in news about the cases, fails WP:PROMO and WP:CORPDEPTH Kraxler (talk) 16:41, 16 September 2015 (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.