Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Susman Godfrey

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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:30, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Susman Godfrey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The topic of this article lacks notability. In addition the article reads like an advertisement or PR pamphlet (and appears to have been authored by a single-purpose editor). AugusteBlanqui (talk) 09:13, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:33, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:33, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:33, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:33, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:33, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:33, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete: It meets both WP:A7 and WP:G11 criteria. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 10:34, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Redirect to Stephen Susman. There is at least one reliable source with in depth coverage from Forbes that was removed from a previous version but it is centered on Stephen Susman. Another article created by the WP:SPA author of this article. This article does not meet speedy deletion criteria, but in its current form is clearly promotional. I removed 7 inline external links to the corporate website from the body and infobox of the article. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 10:51, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, and I'd lean toward a speedy delete. Plus, the article has outright unsupportable statements; presumably they don't represent companies whose business it is to blaze trails in the wilderness, let alone representing the Portland Trailblazers, yet we're told that they're a trailblazing commercial litigation boutique. And how is this company a small store that sells stylish clothing, jewelry, or other usually luxury goods? Rather unlikely. Nyttend (talk) 00:25, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unsourced BLP. Fails WP:BIO and WP:V. Possible redirect if there is supporting evidence. scope_creep^Talk 13:19, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be speedied. It is unsourced. scope_creep^Talk 13:20, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete as advertising. GregJackP Boomer! 09:12, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - advertising article only. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 15:05, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.