Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward Nathan Sonnenbergs

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 keep. (non-admin closure) Mediran (t • c) 09:42, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Nathan Sonnenbergs

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

non-neutral article used for advertising The Banner talk 11:59, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:56, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:56, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:56, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Being South Africa's largest law firm (a reliably-sourced claim) makes it notable to my mind. However, the current article is very problematic (basically an advert) and it needs cleaning out. - htonl (talk) 16:16, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Automatic Strikeout (T • C) 03:08, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - for being a notable company. Completely agree that it needs to be re-written though Gbawden (talk) 06:55, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It does seem to be a notable South African company. But it obviously needs a rewrite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.14.88.44 (talk) 10:56, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I have tried to rewrite it. Unfortunately, both times my edits were quickly reverted. This convinced me that the single purpose of this article was advertising. The Banner talk 17:42, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rewrite. – SJ + 02:10, 21 March 2013 (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.