Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP


 * 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 speedy keep. withdraw the afd pending rewriting. If it needs nominating again, it can be nominated again. This is why I do not delete singlehanded: group decisions work better in improving the encyclopedia.  DGG ( talk ) 05:37, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The was listed by another editor for Speedy deletion, as G11, entirely promotional. Though I think it is highly promotional in effect, it is written in a relatively neutral tone. I think it should be deleted, but I would be more comfortable in deleting this after a group decision.  DGG ( talk ) 23:56, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. Although you wouldn't know it from the article, this law firm is the renamed successor of the controversial securities plaintiff's firm Lerach Coughlin Stoia and Geller, previously led by William Lerach.   They're still prominent in the area--note the hundreds of hits in the Wall Street Journal  and New York Times .  On the other hand I appreciate DGG's concerns about the article. I'm reserving my !vote for the time being.--Arxiloxos (talk) 00:30, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment I thought I recognized some of the names.... I should have checked further. The obvious thing to do is a combined article. We usually use the most recent name in such cases, but if the earlier name is the better known, perhaps it should be used.  DGG ( talk ) 06:53, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:46, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:46, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:46, 17 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep, with re-write: I can see why it was nom'd. There is a promotional tone to it, but the firm itself does seem notable enough, especially with some of the coverage the bigger cases got. DGG, would you be open to putting the nom on hold while I take a crack at toning down the promotional aspects and maybe shortening the listings of big cases and award puffery? I'm not aiming to combine it with the Lerach article at this point.Niteshift36 (talk) 14:51, 19 May 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.