Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gray Loeffler LLC

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 no consensus. IronGargoyle (talk) 14:48, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gray Loeffler LLC[edit]

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

Non-notable company, recreated, speedy contested. delete UtherSRG (talk) 10:31, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -- UtherSRG (talk) 10:32, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- UtherSRG (talk) 10:32, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- UtherSRG (talk) 10:32, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- UtherSRG (talk) 10:33, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- UtherSRG (talk) 10:33, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of third party coverage. Jminthorne (talk) 10:40, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nom Codf1977 (talk) 12:10, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, lack of non-trivial independent reliable sources. Guy (Help!) 14:25, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – lacks non-trivial coverage. Fails WP:COMPANY. ttonyb (talk) 15:29, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Isn't the appropriate rule that applies to whether something is deleted the following:

A7. No indication of importance (individuals, animals, organizations, web content).An article about a real person, individual animal(s), an organization (e.g. band, club, company, etc., except schools), or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. This is distinct from verifiability and reliability of sources, and is a lower standard than notability. This criterion applies only to articles about web content and to articles about people, organizations, and individual animals themselves, not to articles about their books, albums, software, or other creative works. This criterion does not apply to species of animals, only to individual animal(s). The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source. The criterion does apply if the claim of significance or importance given is not credible. If the claim's credibility is unclear, you can improve the article yourself, propose deletion, or list the article at articles for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevenmitchell (talk • contribs)

Comment -In an AfD, an appropriate guideline is WP:COMPANY. Jminthorne (talk) 04:24, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - So the 3 journalistic articles which provide mention of the firm's lobbying activities (Forbes, LA Times & Huffington Post) already cited in the article are not significant enough I take it? Stevenmitchell (talk) 04:31, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -I can't speak for anyone else, but Forbes and Huffington appear extremely trivial to me. I couldn't find any mention of Loeffler in the LA Times links, but that may be due to a broken link. Jminthorne (talk) 04:43, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – As I indicated above, I concur with Jminthorne. ttonyb (talk) 06:15, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Or at least, consider this a respectful, tentative dissent to preclude a snow-delete, before the creator has a chance to add references about the history of this firm. This lobbying firm seems to have a number of notable (or potentially notable) members (e.g. [1][2] Its current name appears to be new and doesn't have a lot of coverage, but a search of its previous incarnation as The Loeffler Group reveals stronger claims. I note that there are more than 100 hits for "Loeffler Group" at Google News Archives. As usual with such searches, a lot of the results are pay-per-view and discerning the exact content can be elusive, but it does seem that this firm was reasonably notable for its relationship to John McCain's 2008 presidential campaign (see, e.g., a 2008 complaint that "suggests that a lobbying firm called The Loeffler Group LLP may have subsidized the salary of McCain's National Finance Director, Susan Nelson, a former Loeffler Group employee"[3] and other coverage of the firm's relation to McCain[4][5]. And here is a 2007 article about their lobbying for the European Aeronautic Defense and Space Co.[6]. --Arxiloxos (talk) 07:14, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
KeepMost lobbying firms are very hard to document, but I'm prepared to go by the indirect indication that when the ex-chair of the House Budget committee heads a lobbying firm, the firm has a notable influence. DGG ( talk ) 02:37, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I modified the "find sources" template by taking out the "LLC."[7] If the article is kept, the "LLC" should be removed from the article name, per Wikipedia naming conventions.--Pink Bull 03:05, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: go with DGG. Dewritech (talk) 13:28, 10 June 2010 (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.