Talk:Bowmans (law firm)

This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

South Africa Mid‑importance

	South Africa portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject South Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of South Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.South AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject South AfricaTemplate:WikiProject South AfricaSouth Africa articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Companies Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany articles

Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Companies To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Wikipedia:Requested articles/Business and economics/Companies
Assess : Category:Unassessed company articles
Copyedit : Category:Company articles needing attention
Infobox : Category:Company articles needing infoboxes
Maintain : Portal:Companies
Stubs : Help expand stub articles located at Category:Company stubs
Other :
- Tag company articles with the {{portal|Companies}} template
- Tag company talk pages with the {{WikiProject Companies}} project banner
- Answer requests for comments

Proposed deletion

This page is unambiguously promotional, and its entire content is a copyright violation that was removed before being reinserted again. Please refer to the article history --93.186.22.120 (talk) 21:05, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have referred to the article history as you suggest, and have found that there are previous versions that are not unambiguously promotional and not copyright violations, so there is no reason to delete this. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:15, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, however, why has no administrator addressed the user who has now twice inserted the same copyright violating and promotional material?93.186.22.122 (talk) 21:23, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]