Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Goodman, Lieber, Kurtzberg & Holliway


 * 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. The "delete" arguments are not only more numerous, but also stronger: the source analysis by Pilaz demonstrates in an uncontested manner that the coverage of this fictional law firm in secondary sources is extremely superficial. Redirection to where it is mentioned in the character biography (She-Hulk) might a reasonable alternative to deletion, but is contested, so creating a redirect is a matter for a separate discussion.  Sandstein  20:13, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Goodman, Lieber, Kurtzberg & Holliway

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

I found no significant coverage for this fictional law firm. SL93 (talk) 18:24, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 18:24, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:35, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Quick Google Scholar search, dropping the final name, shows two reasonable treatments, and, both of which are paywalled but I can provide excerpts if desired. Honestly, reading through the sources, though, "Fictional Lawyers in Comics" seems to be a better notable topic--the first spends more time talking about Two Face and Daredevil, as one might imagine, than She Hulk's law firm. Jclemens (talk) 21:23, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure such a thing counts as significant coverage for this article in particular, but I could be wrong. SL93 (talk) 22:05, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, both these sources cover multiple fictional/comics law firms, of which this subject isn't the biggest or most notable. Jclemens (talk) 23:09, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I was able to access the second paper, and this firm is just mentioned in passing in one sentence. This is clearly NOT WP:SIGCOV. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 11:57, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, but in the context of other fictional/comics law firms, which is why I suggest that this topic be covered differently there. The first one is the better one, with about a paragraph of coverage of this firm, but merger to She Hulk is not a bad ATD if no one has time to create the article on fictional lawyers in comics I'd prefer. Jclemens (talk) 18:37, 9 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete. Extreme facruft in the current form, totally fails WP:GNG. Ping me if better sources are found, so far the article has nothing, nor has anything been presented here, and my own BEFORE failed to find anything but a few passing mentions here and there, in the midsts of various plot summaries. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 11:59, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per arguments from Jclemens, or merge to She-Hulk per WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD. I'm not sure if it will be appearing in She-Hulk (TV series) later this year, but if so it is likely to receive more coverage at that time. BOZ (talk) 13:17, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:GNG, and the rest is unsourced WP:OR and indiscriminate information. Source 1 has two namechecks for the firm in one paragraph p. 191: Although she lost her job as an assistant prosecutor due to her celebrity status, She-Hulk was quickly offered a new job by the prestigious law firm of Goodman, Lieber, Kurtzberg & Holliway because she was a good attorney, not because she was a superhero, and The firm of Goodman, Lieber, Kurtzberg & Holliway, much like Harvey Birdman, specializes in representing superheroes and has been know to use comic books as legal precedent. So all we have is that it's a prestigious law firm for which She-Hulk works that represents superheroes and uses comic books as precedent, and that's our only secondary source on the fictional firm. Since source 2 offered above is a passing mention, we're far from the multiple, reliable and independent secondary sources needed to satisfy WP:GNG. Besides, the rest of the article is WP:OR-ish fancruft which violates WP:IINFO, so I don't see why you would want to merge the same issues into another article. The fact that she works at that firm is already mentioned in the She Hulk article anyway, so deleting this article would only remove original research from Wikipedia. Pilaz (talk) 22:49, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but what are you asserting is OR? Unsourced material isn't generally OR, OR is a specific type of argumentation (not exposition) unsupported by RS'es. As has been mentioned above, many of the elements here are likely to feature in the upcoming TV show. By keeping this article, we provide a place for impending discussion, rather than expect to see a number of other poorly researched articles created.  I'll further note that one RS already existed in the article. Jclemens (talk) 21:12, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * There are hints that the roster section is OR, thanks to the curious wording "He appears to be", "apparently wiped by himself", "apparently killed saving her teammates". That's a lot of uncertainty for something that isn't OR. Pilaz (talk) 00:27, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah, I'd missed that. So, that can be edited out to resolve the OR concern? I certainly don't have any objection to you doing so judiciously during the course of the discussion. Jclemens (talk) 06:21, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Sure! Then again, the related problem here is that it's impossible to tell what is OR and what isn't, since most of the prose isn't compliant with WP:V. Pilaz (talk) 10:50, 11 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete - Unlikely to be a search term, and anyone knowledgeable enough to search for it will surely be able to She-Hulk on their own. Even if it is included in the upcoming television show, keeping it "just in case" violates CRYSTAL and assumes coverage will appear IF the firm itself appears. I think that's unlikely, as the Nelson & Murdock firm (which is far more notable within the fiction) has been in both film and television but still fails to merit more than being a redirect itself. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:37, 12 February 2022 (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.