Talk:Waldo & Lyle

Contested deletion

This page is not unambiguously promotional, because the aggrandizing aspects of the page have been removed. I submitted this page a few months back with more flourish and detail, and it was taken down for being too promotional. Though I did not create that version of the page with intent to promote the firm, I can't deny it came across as such. This version removes all the unnecessary flourish. It just says what the firm is, how it came to be, and why it is notable (as a defense to any potential challenge to notability). The only thing on the page that might suggest promotion is the phrase "precedent-setting" which I will admit does sound somewhat aggrandizing, but I struggle to find a more neutral term for a case that has had an impact on the law ("cases which have influenced state law"?). I am not in the employ of the law firm (my ailing bank account can attest to that), I am just a law student in the broader region who is a fan of Joe Waldo's work with no intent or desire to work at his firm after graduating (the practice is too limited, it would get boring). To suggest that admiration for the subject matter constitutes a conflict of interest would result in taking down most pages on the website.

The firm is worthy of a page because of its reach and influence in Virginia and surrounding states despite being small and relatively young. What do you need to see or not see in order for you to give it the thumbs up? User:WBNewman1

Please don't forget to sign your posts. What we need to see is some evidence that the firm is notable. This could be achieved by showing that it has received significant coverage in multiple independent, reliable secondary sources. I'm not seeing this at present. Deb (talk) 19:13, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

I have multiple citations to The Virginian Pilot - the state's biggest newspaper, the Roanoke Times - a major newspaper for the western regions of the state, the Chicago Tribune, and independent websites. I'm not sure what more you're asking for. I've seen some of the attorneys being interviewed about their cases on the news, so I guess I could try to dig those interviews up. I had more sources in the article's previous longer incarnation, but I've removed a lot of that material so the article wouldn't come across as promotional. Can you tell me what else you're looking for in terms of independent, reliable secondary sources? --WBNewman1 (talk) 19:50, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I declined the speedy-deletion nomination. However, this article still has issues regarding notability. There's nothing wrong with the Virginian Pilot, or the Chicago Tribune. Indeed, those are reliable, independent sources. The problem is those sources talk about cases the topic has worked on. Those sources to not talk about the topic at hand, itself, in an in-depth manner. I hope that helps. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:04, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Alright, I have added a cite to a Virginian Pilot article that talks about Waldo's practice and the formation of Waldo & Lyle. I think that should help. --WBNewman1 (talk) 21:24, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm wondering what information I can put on the page without seeming promotional, after looking at the pages for other Virginia firms. I don't really want the page to be longer, but I want enough to get to remove the banner questioning general notability. If you look at the uncontested page of Oblon, it talks about attorneys and its blog. If you look at the uncontested page for Allen, Allen, Allen & Allen, it gives a long list of recognition some of its attorneys have gotten. Can I put some of this on the Waldo & Lyle page, and if so, will it go to general notability and let me take down the banner? --WBNewman1 (talk) 16:22, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Also, I've looked at the pages for several Virginia-based law firms, and several of them cite to fewer secondary sources than my page, if to any at all, but do not have any banners like my page does. --WBNewman1 (talk) 16:26, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

General Notability

I want to get this page up to snuff so that I can remove the banner questioning the topic's notability so that I don't have to worry about it being taken down again. Since a previous incarnation of the page was taken down for sounding promotional, I was wondering what more I can add. I plan to put a bit more on history, but the firm is 22 years old, so doesn't have a century of name changes to list like other Virginia firms with articles on this site. If you look at the pages for Oblon and Allen, Allen, Allen & Allen, they are uncontested and talk about individual attorneys' successes and things like the firm's blog. Are these fair game for my page? I don't really want to add things in that nature because they ring of promotion, but if it will help the notability, I'll put these things up for this firm to the extent the Owners Counsel and eminent domain blogs talk about them. --WBNewman1 (talk) 18:31, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Since nobody was willing to give advice on this, I've reverted it back to the form that survived the speedy deletion nomination. I kept the more robust history and the Virginian Pilot source on the topic.--WBNewman1 (talk) 18:37, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

See below. Also, my advice, write about what makes them newsworthy, which is the things covered in independent sources. You have a lot of material in those to work from. North8000 (talk) 12:42, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Feedback from New Page Review process

I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: Nice start. Could really use more content. They have a newsworthy specialty and a lot of material in the sources to build from..

North8000 (talk) 12:39, 18 May 2020 (UTC)