Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lehman Brothers

''From VfD:'

Reads like vanity/spam. -- Grunt (talk) 17:42, 2004 Aug 19 (UTC)
 * Vanity ad- delete. I could imagine someone someday writing an actual article on very old (by Ameican standards) insurance companies, but this is just trash. -FZ 17:58, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Clean up: The firm is really quite large, unless I'm very much mistaken.  They're Fortune 500, have been in the news for bad reasons lately, etc.  Granted that this article looks like junk, but a real article should be done on the company. We can delete it if Clean Up fails to make something real of it.  Geogre 18:00, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Clean up is not going to do better than what Samuel J. Howard has done, I think. Geogre 03:03, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep and cleanup. -Sean Curtin 19:10, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Company is certainly large enough to be notable. Current version strikes me more like a stub than spam. Keep stub. Rossami 21:21, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. I've improved it enough for even the most excitable deltionist ;) --Samuel J. Howard 22:17, Aug 19, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. It needs a serious cleanup but given the prominance of the firm, its value to wikipedia outweighs current deficiencies. Arminius 23:33, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * it needs more info, but I don't think it's warranted to say it needs "serious cleanup". It's not advertising copy, I wrote it from a couple of different sources. (and I don't work for Lehman brothers)--Samuel J. Howard 02:43, Aug 20, 2004 (UTC)


 * Keep. Subject is notable, article is messy POV but contains enough info that cleanup would be worthwhile.   &mdash; Gwalla | Talk 02:58, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep - more needed, but what's there is worth keeping. - TB 08:33, Aug 20, 2004 (UTC)
 * Someone should create stubs for all the "Fortune 500" companies, not just this one. Why should Wikipedia be packed with Pokemon and GameBoy entries and miss any "Fortune 500" company? This is virtually our government. Wetman 08:36, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Good idea. I've updated Fortune 500 to include the current list and am in the process of matching back company names to articles we have - TB 11:45, Aug 20, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Fortune 500 companies are certainly notable and this has grown into a good article by now. Andris 11:42, Aug 20, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Large companies should be documented, "Fortune 500" or equivalent classifications abroad. Let is just edit articles so that they do not contain POV or advertisements. Nor should they skirt controversial issues. David.Monniaux 16:54, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. I always knew we were weak on business-related subjects, but I had no idea just how weak until I saw that sea of red links on the Fortune 500 list.  A few of them may have unlinked articles under their common names.  (I made a redirect from Lehman Brothers Holdings Incorporated.)  Still, we have a long way to go.  Eventually, we ought to have every Fortune 500 company, plus every NYSE-listed company, plus at least the larger NASDAQ companies, plus some major corporations that aren't publicly traded, plus quite a few partnerships.  The Lehman Brothers article needs some work (will people please stop using "they" to refer to a corporation?), but it's just about the least delete-worthy article I've ever seen listed here. JamesMLane 09:07, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep in present form. This company would be notable even if it weren't in the Fortune 500. The present article looks OK to me. Thanks, Samuel J. Howard, good work. It seems as if the amount of detail devoted to the 2003 SEC litigation is out of balance with the rest of the article, but no doubt that will fix itself over time. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 23:20, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * I actually wrote both halves mainly. After I wrote the history half people complained it was too rah rah promotional so I added the SEC stuff. It was easy, becuase I just rewrote the public domain SEC press release, so it did go a bit long.--Samuel J. Howard 00:52, Aug 22, 2004 (UTC)

end moved discussion