This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pennsylvania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pennsylvania on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PennsylvaniaWikipedia:WikiProject PennsylvaniaTemplate:WikiProject PennsylvaniaPennsylvania articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philadelphia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Philadelphia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhiladelphiaWikipedia:WikiProject PhiladelphiaTemplate:WikiProject PhiladelphiaPhiladelphia articles
This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter.
The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.
Hope I got the spelling right. Most of the article is taken nearly word for word from FR's webpage. I wish I could send it to WP:AFD, but it undoubtedly passes the WP:N test. I'm tempted to blank it and leave a cautionary note for PR types writing proprietary pages for Wikipedia. I suppose someone ought to rewrite the thing, but yours truly doesn't give a rat's patootie if another big law firm is included in Wikipedia or not. Tapered (talk) 04:59, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just followed through and removed virtually all of the article. Most of it had been copied directly from F-R's website with appropriate substitutions from first to third person, tense, and contextual agreement. This all violated WP:PROMOTION, as well as copyright law for copying without permission. The cautionary boxes were removed as no longer relevant. The infobox was left as it was well documented and neutral. Tapered (talk) 00:12, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
