Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steptoe & Johnson PLLC

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. T. Canens (talk) 05:08, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Steptoe & Johnson PLLC

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

Promotional article about a law firm, largely written by undisclosed paid editors editing in violation of our terms of use, and post-prod restoration requested by another paid editor. Referenced only to primary sources, almost none of them independent, and the others trivial mentions. I don't think it quite rises to the level of a G11, but it's close, and even if the article subject does meet WP:GNG - which I see no evidence of - it should still be deleted per WP:TNT. —Cryptic 17:02, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 17:37, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 17:37, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:45, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:46, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - this is a huge mess, warranting the invocation of TNT, but on the other hand, this is a well-known and respected law firm, and would pass my standards of notability. Such a pity they appear to have wasted good money on paid but badly written editing. I'm worried that this could become a bad precedent, so I'm going to hold off on a !vote. Bearian (talk) 19:55, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Per this, this was an in-house job (as in, they had/have their employees work on this), so at least it's not someone masquarading as a professional wikipedia writer. Small consolation, just saying. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:04, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unreferenced; any refs present in the article are related not to the company but to Louis A. Johnson. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:04, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe redirect to Louis A. Johnson instead (where it is briefly mentioned) as my searches found a plethota of results here, here, here and here. SwisterTwister talk 05:06, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The only mention I see at Louis A. Johnson is of Steptoe & Johnson (whose article is also a mess, though not as large of one). This firm is apparently a spinoff of that one. Without a direct mention in the founder's article, I can't support a redirect to it; and although this is mentioned in Steptoe & Johnson, a redirect there doesn't seem appropriate. —Cryptic 18:39, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:06, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not seeing any independent sources here. shoy (reactions) 18:09, 11 August 2015 (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.