Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Parker Law Firm

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete (After filtering through the edit history for new users, anons, and other questionable actions, I count 14 delete, 3 merge, and 1 redirect votes) --Allen3 talk 15:03, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Parker Law Firm

 * (SOCK PUPPET) Delete Terrible. I know Mr. Parker personally and know that he would not approve of this article.--EarlBoykins 23:08, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
 * (SOCK PUPPET) KEEP To delete this would be sinful. p.s. can you figure out if I'm a sock puppet?...beeotches! --Fuckthe LHP Haters 23:02, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete What is this? Practically this same article is listed under Votes for deletion/Larry H. Parker. Complete vanity, not to mention that it's repetitive vanity. Note the bit at the bottom of the page about "Supporters and Detractors." --Blackcap | talk 21:58, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * (SOCK PUPPET) Undecided I compared this to the article Blackcap referenced. It is much better than that one.  However, the part at the bottom is vanity, but seems to be in jest.  "Lion of the Law"?  Please, give me a break.  Maybe they should decide this one in the court of law!--JohnF32 22:05, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
 * User:JohnF32: 3 edits, all of them for either this VfD or the Larry H. Parker VfD. --Blackcap | talk 22:13, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * (SOCK PUPPET) KEEP I like that "Lion of the Law" part. Seems accurate.  --Majutray 22:00, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
 * User:Sinatra-iz-God: 4 edits, all of them for either this VfD or the Larry H. Parker VfD. Unfortunately for you, neither accuracy nor how much you like the "Lion of the Law" bit is relevant. It's a vanity page, and should be deleted according to this policy. --Blackcap | talk 22:09, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete the wønderful spåm. Pilatus 22:08, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete A relatively amusing vanity page but it's advertising. Dlyons493 22:12, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. nn supported by sock puppets that have all already been worn on Larry H. Parker.JDoorjam 22:13, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
 * (SOCK PUPPET) Policy schmolicy! I say KEEP!!  Keep keep keep keep keep!!  Ring-a-Ding-Ding Baby!!--Sinatra-iz-God 22:18, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
 * (SOCK PUPPET) Keep Just because someone is new to wikipedia doesn't mean they're a sock puppet--138.13.212.7 22:20, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Is your reason to keep this article that you're not a sockpuppet? That's not a very good reason, I'm afraid. Beacause of the rampant sockpuppet problem, users with 0 edits or very few edits or who haven't contributed anything of value to Wikipedia are generally ignored. It would help your case if you'd provide a decent reason to keep the article. --Blackcap | talk 22:25, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * (SOCK PUPPET) How do we really know that he isn't THE true Lion of the Law? I say we keep this one too!--Pete Mos$ 22:21, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
 * (SOCK PUPPET) Special thanks to LongDongHanks for posting this in support of the original article...thanks LongDong!--Dorang12 22:23, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
 * (SOCK PUPPET) Keep, Keep, Keep,Keep,Keep,Keep,Keep,Keep,Keep,Keep,Keep,Keep,Keep,Keep,Keep,Keep,Keep,Keep,Keep,Keep,Keep,Keep,Keep,Keep,Keep,Keep,Keep,Keep,Keep,Keep,Keep,Keep,Keep,Keep,Keep,Keep,Keep,Keep,Keep,Keep,Keep--Dorang12 22:24, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I've reconsidered from the LHP listing. BJAODeletedN.  &mdash; Lomn | Talk / RfC 22:31:39, 2005-08-24 (UTC)
 * Can't sleep, sockpuppets will eat me... can't sleep, sockpuppets will eat me... can't sleep, sockpuppets will eat me... oh, and, delete -Satori (talk) 22:35, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I just removed the "sock puppet" tag from before my vote. At least check my edit history before you try to cancel my vote... and besides, give the admins some credit. All these sock puppet tags are just making this VfD harder to read. -Satori (talk) 23:39, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Sock puppets where it hurts them most. Alf 22:39, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
 * - I ain't no sock, take a sniff. Alf 23:55, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
 * (second time of removing sock puppetry from my vote) Alf 01:48, 25 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm changing my vote too, for this and Larry H. Parker: Speedy BJAODN. JDoorjam 22:43, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
 * redirect to Larry H. Parker. Zoe 23:18, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * (SOCK PUPPET) Vote to KEEEEEEEEP LHP!!!--Parker for President 23:28, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

The tags were added to all the names, I assume by the author. Let's please get this over with. JDoorjam 00:18, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 * DELETE sock puppetry at its best (worst?) -- Ryan Norton T 00:52, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Anyone who puts a SLASH through a keep (i.e. keep) is none other than a......SOCK PUPPET!!!!!
 * tags from User:209.150.74.25 removed. &mdash; Lomn | Talk / RfC 02:43:00, 2005-08-25 (UTC)


 * Delete as sock supported legal firm advertisement. Capitalistroadster 03:10, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete the sockpuppets have spoken. -- Etacar11   03:17, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as advertising and sockpuppetry. Users (including me) have attempted to reason with the author, but have had no success. Ground Zero | t 13:58, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 14:25, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - sounds like a bad saturday night live skit - T&#949;x  &#964;  ur&#949;  14:28, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 * The odds are pretty high that there were probably SNL skits based upon the Larry H. Parker since several of the writers and comedians were originally from the LA area. Blank Verse   &empty;  12:48, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete'. advertising and not notable. -- DS1953 23:12, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge My personal opinion is that his original ads were pretty cheezy, but they were a very common sight on late night TV in Los Angeles for quite awhile, and they did cause a law to be written to eliminate the mention of the amount of legal settlements in lawyer advertising in California. The Larry H. Parker article and this article should be merged together. Blank Verse   &empty;  09:30, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
 * That's perfectly true, but the Larry H. Parker article is currently undergoing VfD and will probably be deleted, so it doesn't seem worth the effort. --Blackcap | talk 17:05, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * Although I'm usually more of a deletionist, this is one case that deserves to be saved. I'm not going to campaign for it, but hopefully some people will change their vote. Or, with all the sockpuppet mess (and reaction to it), perhaps the article deserves a revote. Blank Verse   &empty;  12:48, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge to Larry H. Parker if it doesn't get deleted... I think BlankVerse makes a good point... especially if he had influence in forcing the "law to be written to eliminate the mention of the amount of legal settlements in lawyer advertising in California". gren グレン 18:18, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge, agree with gren --fpo 21:46, August 28, 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete not notable. (Ditto for Larry H. Parker.) - brenneman (t) (c)  15:42, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete NN, vanity. --tranquileye 19:31:02, 2005-08-29 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.