Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ogier (law firm)


 * 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   keep. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 05:22, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Ogier (law firm)

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Notability, Inadequate Sourcing, Reads like an Advert Cmichael (talk) 03:39, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'm going to go ahead and nominate this article for WP:AFD. It's been sitting here for several months, and I see little or no improvement in it from the points of view of either notability or verifiability. It is still largely written as an advertisement. It does not, in my judgment, meet WP:Company, as the citations given are mostly aimed at niche-markets. Ogier has received trivial and incidental coverage in trade publications. There is no evidence of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. I think that a serious deletion discussion, at the very least, is warranted. delete Cmichael (talk) 03:27, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  -- ( X!  ·  talk )  · @261  · 05:15, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. Disclosure of bias: I started the article (it followed on from the article on the offshore magic circle), but I accept that the Ogier article never really developed, and it seems to have descended into a mini mud-slinging match between Ogier's PR team and some disgruntled ex-employee.  But Ogier is a significant player both in the Jersey economy and in the world of offshore finance.  I suggest paring the article down and keeping it as a stub until someone with the requisite knowledge to develop it comes along. --Legis (talk - contribs) 13:04, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete Keep. Looking through the edit history, the original article asserted notability through a cite to Chambers Global directory, but that seems to have been removed when the article became a WP:COATRACK to hang advertising/grumbles on. As it stands, it should be deleted; but if someone with the expertise can trim out the fluff and restore an assertion of notability, then I would change my view and !vote to keep it - assuming it is worth the effort of someone periodically removing extraneous content in future. --RexxS (talk) 15:11, 22 July 2009 (UTC) I've tried a copyedit and restored an assertion of notability. It still needs more cites. --RexxS (talk) 21:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It's obviously big enough relative to our other law firms. And if you don't like the writing, fix it.  I won't cry if it's deleted, but I vote Kinda Keep -- Y not? 14:35, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak keep and stub. In fact I will do that today unless anyone objects. ukexpat (talk) 15:22, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't object, however when I looked at it with an eye toward doing the same thing, I figured that I'd end up with one or two sentences, max, and poorly cited at that. But, please have at it! (I do agree with Y that it's a big enough outfit to have an article, if that's any criterion.) Cmichael (talk) 16:45, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Since nobody else has done so, I went ahead and pared it back to where I think it belongs. If all agree that this is a good restarting point, then I'd be willing to withdraw the AfD nomination. It still needs some better evidence of notability.  Cmichael (talk) 05:08, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I've tried to use a snippet of Legis' wording from the original version of the article, and used the reference from Offshore magic circle that supports Ogier's inclusion in that group to assert notability. Perhaps Legis can check the refs (I can't see the full versions) and confirm that they verify the information? --RexxS (talk) 15:16, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I can't get the Chambers link to work, either. I just get their home page, can't get to the search feature. Cmichael (talk) 19:28, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Stubification looks fine to me. I can only get the Chambers search box to display in IE and I get this search result. – ukexpat (talk) 19:56, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I use Firefox, and it didn't work. ukeexpat's link does. I'll replace the reference with ukexpat's. I'm good with leaving it as is for now, and seeing what happens. I withdraw my AfD nomination. keep and watch Cmichael (talk) 03:21, 29 July 2009 (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.