User talk:Dts1234

Dolin Thomas & Solomon

This looks like a great start in turning the article into one that asserts notability. I have some suggestions for you in order to help you build your case much stronger:

Consider using the following mechanism in the article for notes/references:  <div class="references-small"> <references/> </div>. You seem HTMl literate, so I suspect this will need no further explanation. If you want an example, have a look at Tide Mills, East Sussex which deploys it. You get a very neat and professional effect
Where you have a number of articles from the same organ, I suggest you choose the very best of them to make your case, or perhaps a couple, and link to the articles themselves (using the scheme in (1) above
Turn it form what is a PR piece into a flat, encyclopaedic piece. Ok, this is harder to do, especially if your role is marketing the firm. Put simply, make it a report on the firm's existence, but remove any praising or other emotive language.

On the basis of the work you have done, I am about to remove the banners regarding sources and notability. I think you have asserted both of these. I will look seriously at changing my expressed opinion on the AfD page on the basis that you will attend to the PR tone. Your challenge here is to leave some article while removing the trade puffery. Oh, a final thought. You probably do not know this yet, but on (eg) talk pages, but never on articles you sign your name with ~~~~, which translates to a date/timestamp and your ID Fiddle Faddle 14:46, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Just to say well done for attempting to improve this article. I just have one suggestion for you, which will save editing time later. Rather than using manual footnotes, you should use the system outlined at WP:FOOT. Cordless Larry 15:29, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, you used the more complex system of footnotes. I never got in to those. I have made a couple of stylistic edits, and changed my opinion to "Keep". A bit of a baptism of fire, wasn't it? Don't forget ~~~~ signs your name on Deletion discussions and talk pages. We all forget sometimes Fiddle Faddle 15:05, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both for all of your help. --64.80.209.214 13:48, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Dolin Thomas & Solomon

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Dolin Thomas & Solomon, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

Poorly done marketing piece for non notable lawfirm.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. KenWalker | Talk 04:03, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Thomas & Solomon LLP for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Thomas & Solomon LLP is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas & Solomon LLP until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:07, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]