Talk:Ogier (law firm)

This article was nominated for deletion on 22 July 2009 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Jersey Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jersey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jersey 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.JerseyWikipedia:WikiProject JerseyTemplate:WikiProject JerseyJersey articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

Marked this for speedy deletion. Someone else had previously tried to, but left a typo in the tag. Reads as a blatant advert, and most of the content was added early on by username Tomnewbald, who according to Google is the "Online Development Manager" for Ogiers. 81.20.181.126 (talk) 10:39, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't intended to be an advert. I started the article some time ago as part of a series of articles on all of the firms in the offshore magic circle, but I know little about Ogier other than the basics, so I wasn't able to flesh it out. I agree that the article needs some healthy and constructive input. --Legis (talk - contribs) 11:16, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I only used that tag because it was already present, but visible in the article as it was mis-spelled. However, removing the promotional sounding COI edits will take it back down to a very short stub. Is the company really notable? Perhaps the information in offshore magic circle will suffice, without its own article? 81.20.181.126 (talk) 11:51, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the person who added the advert tag. If they really do employ 800 people and do representation worldwide, then I would argue that they are notable. However, this article needs a great deal of work. I know absolutely nothing about Ogier besides what I've read here, and much of that is questionable. Hopefully somebody will soon come along and fix it. Otherwise, I'd be in favor of trimming it back to a stub. Cmichael (talk) 15:25, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think they are notable under the unofficial "big fish in a small pond" criteria. They are a pretty key part of the economic landscape in Jersey, although I don't have hard numbers. They win "offshore law firm" of the year every so often (not as rare as it sounds - there are lots of "offshore law firm" of the year awards). I don't know a great deal about them other than reputationally. --Legis (talk - contribs) 16:02, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD Nomination

OK, I'm going to go ahead and nominate this article for WP:AFD. It's been sitting here for several months, and I see little or no improvement in it from the points of view of either notability or verifiability. It is still largely written as an advertisement. It does not, in my judgment, meet WP:Company, as the citations given are mostly aimed at niche-markets. Ogier has received trivial and incidental coverage in trade publications. There is no evidence of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. I think that a serious deletion discussion, at the very least, is warranted. Cmichael (talk) 03:27, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have contributed lightly to this article in the past. I do not represent a law firm or the legal profession at all. However, I believe it is important to keep an entry on Wikipedia and should be developed further. One of the real problems with obtaining information pertinent to these off-shore firms (either financial or legal) is their secretiveness and restricted exposure to public information. Most of these firms have been set up to work around the laws and tax policies of existing governments and are used for such purposes. As law firms they are all privately-held and that again restricts information further. I would prefer that you do not delete this article, since the existence of the firm should be kept out in the open. I will try to take a stab (as I believe I did earlier) to make it less advertisement-like and add what I can from internet searches... Best... Stevenmitchell (talk) 00:32, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the discussion was to keep the article, with agreement that we would trim it down to a stub and basically start over. So, if you have thoughts about improving it, please feel free to have at it, and best wishes! Cmichael (talk) 02:33, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- At this point, why would I bother to add back anything after all the earlier research has been deleted? Maybe we should remove the article on the CIA because there is so little public information about them? At this juncture, all of the sourced information from the BBC & other (I presume they are acceptable sources to you) media outlets has been deleted. There were even internal memorandum postings of significance (which granted Wikipedia probably can't retain at least in that format) pertaining to the company that were deleted. It seems that you got your wish Cmichael, to delete the article afterall. Nice strategy - essentially complain that the information that does exist doesn't meet all the criteria so the article should be deleted, delete all the pertinent material that does exist, and leave the article standing. Way to go; the largest money-laundering (off-shore) law firm in the world, even given awards by the off-shore Hedge funds that hire and finance them (an article & citation which you deleted), then leave the article standing as a barebones stub so it is effectively useless... Nice job. Maybe you want to come dig up my lawn so I can replant the seed...? Stevenmitchell (talk) 08:16, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Er, please have a look at WP:ATTACK and WP:RELIABLE, then take another stab at improving the article. Thanks. Cmichael (talk) 03:25, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John Francis Giffard

In the main article this was spelled two different ways; I have corrected both to "Giffard" (with an "a") which seems more likely, but not anything I know much about.

Separately, is John Francis Giffard any relation to Hardinge Giffard aka Lord Halsbury (English Lord Chancellor and original editor of Halsburys Laws of England)? If so, should that be noted?

--Legis (talk - contribs) 16:20, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

COI tag (October 2022)

The entire revision history of this article for several years seems to be a menagerie of single-purpose accounts. jp×g 09:48, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]