Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomson Geer


 * 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   delete. While there are a variety of opinions being advanced in this discussion, the couple of explicit "Keep" votes are either not enthusiastic, or not rooted in policy ("top ten" firms are not presumed notable, for instance). On the other hand, the deletion arguments, particularly the one advanced by User:StephenBuxton, are convincing and emphatic. Time to put this one out of its misery. Lankiveil (speak to me) 08:39, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Thomson Geer

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article has been recreated 5 times, and all 5 incarnations have been identical, I still personally see no great significance for the article and feel it is blatant advertising, originally being created by a user with the username TGLaw and now those user(s) are using alternative names however are linked to this business. The recreated page could not be done on the original page Thomson Geer as an admin rightfully and purposefully blocked this from being created thus the creator used Thomson geer instead. My personal findings are that I have been more than patient and accommodating and that this page serves only to advertise the business "Thomson Geer" Law KaraokeMac (talk) 09:27, 11 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment: My main issue with deletion here is that the sources do seem to imply some notability. That said, I also agree that the article is being used as a vessel for promotion. I'm having a stab at ripping those out, your feedback and/or assistance in this would be welcome. Furthermore, if you do feel that actions the originating editor(s) meet the definition of sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry, surely raising the matter at SPI would be helpful in controlling their promotional urges? Dolescum (talk) 10:14, 11 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment:

The user uses another article in their defense and whilst I feel it is promotional, I agree with the creator that page they have created does appear to be near on identical to the other article pertaining to a law firm Minter Ellison.
 * - Hello Dolescum,

Re: sockpuppetry I believe they were advised to change their username so not to be too closely associated with the firm on Wikipedia, cannot recall who advised them to do this. So may not quite be to that degree as yet. But yes I think it is somewhat promotional --KaraokeMac (talk) 10:22, 11 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, I'd say that the Minter Ellison article has a problem with promotion and COI, too (I've just tagged it as a reminder to myself get back to it later), but I'd think that is an argument based on other stuff and not really a good reason for deciding either way on this. I also note that there are three other accounts beside yourself and I contributing to that article, all of them new and only having contributed to that article. I shall leave any conclusions to the reader. Dolescum (talk) 10:47, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm sort of torn between now, I don't want to come over like the pantomime villain nor do I want to discourage new contributers but neither do I want Wikipedia being filled with adverts and crap. --KaraokeMac (talk) 10:58, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * - So are you pro delete or against delete?


 * I have added my !vote below, as it stands for the moment. As a grumpy wikipedian I delight in playing the pantomime villain, but perhaps it would be better to see how these new users acquit themselves and assume good faith for the moment, no? Dolescum (talk) 11:14, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Weak Keep, at the moment, having removed the promotional stuff I perceived. If it reverts to promotional, I reserve the right to shift to weak delete.
 * Weak delete Comes down to whether the references provide "substantial" coverage. I don't really see that they do, but it's a subjective evaluation. FeatherPluma (talk) 22:40, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 02:52, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Delete The listed references all read as press releases, rather than actual news coverage. Can't see anything that is actually showing notability properly. Stephen! Coming... 06:38, 14 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment:


 * - Hello all, thanks for all the input. I will try and keep this page non promotional. I am new to wikipedia, but can guarantee I have a lot of Australian legal knowledge to contribute on the back of this page. I stand by the argument that most other law firms use a similar tone. I will also work on the sources to ensure full and adequate media references. Thanks again Newuser — Preceding undated comment added 07:12, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. In the top ten in size, in a fairly large country.  TJRC (talk) 22:26, 14 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:39, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

 
 * Comment. Hi all, thanks for the input. Can I assume that this is now closed? Am I able to remove the deletion box at the header of the page, or am I required to be an Administrator to do that?  Australianeditor (Australianeditor) 15:10, 28 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Please wait for an admin to close it, or for an uninvolved admin to make a non-admin closure. As an involved editor, you (and for that matter, I) cannot close it. TJRC (talk) 20:18, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The outcome is not clear enough for a non-admin closure, so you're waiting on an admin. ? (It might also be relisted once more for more input.) czar ♔  15:54, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * There have been no further !votes yet, so it's still neither here nor there. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:02, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the update. I stand by the argument that the Thomson Geer content is not dissimilar to the content found on many other Australian and international law firm entries. Some of these include, King & Wood Mallesons, DLA Piper, Minter Ellison, Clayton Utz, Gilbert + Tobin, Clifford Chance, Baker & McKenzie, Allens (law firm). They all appear to be promotional in nature. I look forward to working with you all to contribute to this page and the Australian law firm wiki entries in general. Australianeditor (talk) 13:22, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Other Articles do it too is not a defense.SPACKlick (talk) 12:23, 2 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete I can't find anything of serious notability. I don't think companies, regardless of size, get articles without some public perception of prominence. SPACKlick (talk) 12:23, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 14:33, 2 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:SIGCOV, WP:NCORP. If this article is deleted and further sources are subsequently found, they can be noted at WP:DELREV. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 10:18, 12 May 2014 (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.