Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rosen 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  d elete. - Mailer Diablo 10:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Rosen Law Firm

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Procedural nomination as several speedy deletes added and then removed. Trying to find consensus for whether or not article is advertising or non-notable. MightyWarrior 16:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - advertisement and seems like a leaflet they give you in a waiting room whilst waiting for divorce. R_Orange 16:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Good one. Ten Pound Hammer  • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 17:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as advertisement. Much of the information in the article would be more at home on the company's own website. The author states that the company is the source of commentary for some national publications, but I think it would need to be the subject of coverage to attain notability. --Bongwarrior out 16:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete as advertisement for now. Ten Pound Hammer  • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 17:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is supposed to be an on-line encyclopedia. Rosen Law Firm is a major firm in NC.  It is the largest Divorce Firm with 3 offices in that state.  Furthermore, the firm is constantly cited by many other major media outlets.  It belongs in this encyclopedia.  The article simply provides general information about the firm.  You're right, general information about a firm is something that you give in a "waiting" room- but that doesn't mean it's not appropriate for this site.  Furthermore, many of the other articles on this site contain information that could be found on their organizations websites.  I don't think either agruments for deletion are very fair or well contrived. Jmelton 16:59, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Well conceived you mean. "Contrived" means twisted. Anyway, if you can find some reliable sources, feel free to add them. "Largest divorce firm" seems to assert that this company at least has some notability. Ten Pound Hammer  • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 17:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, in this case it means "devised", so "well devised". -- ShinmaWa(talk) 00:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Promotional; not notable Tom Harrison Talk 17:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * How is it not notable? The fact that it is the largest firm in NC alone makes it notable.  Why does everyone want this page gone so bad?  What if I made it simply a stub, would that be ok?  What information should be added or deleted to make this page suitable?  Thanks! Jmelton 18:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * How about some reliable sources? Don't just say that it's notable -- prove it by finding sources and citing them. Ten Pound Hammer  • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 18:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not that everyone wants this page gone, but that we're trying to prevent Wikipedia being used as an vehicle for advertising and spam. Your article just happened to be noticed when it was created.  As you've found (since you're tagged some of them for speedy deletion), there are several articles about legal firms which are non-notable but that have "slipped through the net". -- MightyWarrior 19:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Please note changes made to the page. Looks like Lee Rosen himself has noticed his firm has been added to wikipedia and has added some strong changes.  Thanks! Jmelton 18:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I haven't noticed any significant changes... Ten Pound Hammer  • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 18:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * More significant changes have been made. Let me know what you think and what else can be done.  I am willing to listen to everyone's ideas. Jmelton 20:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It's getting better, but it still needs more reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer  • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 21:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as COI. It's obvious to me that not only does Jmelton work for the firm (if he's not Mr. Rosen himself), but that the account exists only to promote and protect this adverticle.  -- ShinmaWa(talk) 00:23, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete The external sources are an article with a comment from one of the lawyers for the firms, and an article abotu au unsual case in which the firm was the attorney. Neither of them is about the firm. DGG 02:50, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep but trim the unsourced puffery. JamesMLane t c 09:45, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - COI, but Jmelton has been very polite and helpful ˉˉanetode╦╩ 12:42, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Very polite and very cooperative.  There's no doubt he's working in good faith and could make an excellent editor.  This doesn't change my stance on the article one bit, but that shouldn't at all be a reflection on Jmelton.  -- ShinmaWa(talk) 03:45, 22 May 2007 (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.