Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ater Wynne

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 delete. There are a few poor arguments here: CSD#A7 definitely does not apply to a law firm, and when the sources cited as meeting SIGCOV have been challenged, a bare statement that the topic meets GNG doesn't go very far. Among the rest of the comments there seems to be genuine disagreement about the precise level of depth required for a source to count toward NCORP, but given the numerical tilt among those, and also two comments that stop short of saying "delete" but note weaknesses with the claim to notability, consensus here is for deletion. I would remind all editors that with SIGCOV or NCORP, each source being cited as counting toward a notability criterion needs to meet all the relevant sub-criteria; that is, we need multiple sources that are each, individually, reliable and independent and substantive. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:07, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ater Wynne

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Questionable notability - may violate WP:CORPDEPTH. This seems like an every snowflake is unique situation. They don't seem to be involved in anything actually notable, just trade news and commercial real estate transactions. The firm that abosorbed this firm had their wikipedia article previously deleted for lack of notability. (Arguably WP:A7, but I thought it deserved more debate.) QuintinK (talk) 23:33, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Oregon, Washington, Law, and Organizations. sig QuintinK (talk) 23:52, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete reads like a business history, nothing substantial found for sourcing.Oaktree b (talk) 00:48, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Daily Journal of Commerce Oregon and Portland Business Journal seem like exactly the sorts of spots we'd expect to see NCORP coverage. The Oregonian is the city's paper of record. Coverage already extant meets NCORP and GNG, which suggests the parent organization's deletion may need to be reexamined. Jclemens (talk) 00:58, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the article includes citations from legitimate news sources. My thinking is that it violates Wikipedia:A7, in that the article never claims there is anything per se notable about the law firm or its history. It was affiliated with some notable individuals, but there's nothing I see that's obviously notable about the law firm itself. QuintinK (talk) 01:39, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not that, as in it is not if the topic is famous, important, or popular, which appears to be your criteria. Instead, notability is when a topic "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". I think it has, but that is a different debate than if they were involved in a famous case or "anything actually notable". Aboutmovies (talk) 09:16, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article is a far cry for A7. Merely being a "law firm" with multiple partners and important clients is enough to dodge that speedy deletion criterion. Jclemens (talk) 17:07, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No assertion of notability, so fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. UtherSRG (talk) 01:10, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - but I wrote the article. In sum, I try not to write non-notable entries. I research them first to ensure there is solid notability, unless they have something that makes them automatically notable like they are a state legislator. In this case, that included non open web-based articles, which totaled 6 out of the 21 sources. For those who are voting, did you look at any of those articles to be able to actually see if WP:CORPDEPTH was met on those articles? Did the nominator doing any independent checking of sources and look for more as we often require for notability purposes before nominating? Just like notability is not inherited, the fact that the firm that absorbed them was deleted has no bearing. Also, "They don't seem to be involved in anything actually notable" is not criteria and would be an inherited trait that we should not be using as criteria for inclusion as well. The fact is, as a project we have done a poor job of covering law firms. When I see a large firm that has been around awhile make the news and we have no article, I used to take the time to write one. As to notable cases, there are 297 cases in which their name appears in Lexis (my firm only has 69 such results), and another 132 results in Lexis' legal news results (I have added more to the article based on those). There is adequate coverage for notability when you do the research. Aboutmovies (talk) 09:10, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 01:30, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, we really should not be too jumpy just to delete things. This meets WP:GNG from what I can see. TY. — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 06:42, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This was a commercial organization therefore WP:NORG criteria applies. For the most part, the sources are business listings, mentions or based on announcements or information provided by an executive or the company. Nothing significant and in-depth containing "Independent Content" defined as original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. To respond to specific points raised by Keep !voters above - the coverage in the Daily Journal of Commerce Oregon and Portland Business Journal are base don announcements and have no "Independent Content" failing WP:ORGIND. The number of cases in which the law firm was "involved" does not form part of our criteria for establishing notability and those sources do not contain any "Independent Content" of significant in-depth information about the *company*. I'm happy to review my !vote if somebody points to a source (paragraph/page) which contains content that meet NORG criteria. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:21, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - The article cites good legitimate news sources HeliosSunGod (talk) 16:38, 29 December 2022 (UTC)sock strike[reply]

Yes ... yes it does. Unfortunately though, they merely regurgitate announcements. Can you link to specific references you believe meet NCORP criteria? HighKing⁺⁺ 11:50, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No those do not regurgitate announcements. No entity in their right mind would put out press releases that they settled lawsuits by paying money to the plaintiff(s), were being sued for malpractice, or were being investigated by a government regulatory entity for ethics violations. They might put out a press release after the news gets ahold of it, but that's different. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:25, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's really cute. The reality is that most professional "entities" (especially lawfirms) want to "take control of the narrative" whether it is good news or bad. Leaving that aside, if you read the sources it isn't very difficult to see the vacuous nature of the content, relying entirely on quotations and attributions to the firm or their executives. Tell you what. Point me to any source/paragraph which you believe meets NCORP criteria and we will take a look. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:13, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Citing legit sources is insufficient if their coverage is only of a passing nature and not indepth. UtherSRG (talk) 16:54, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. @Aboutmovies: A general observation is that there is a writing problem here: As multiple editors have commented, the article seems to focus a lot on trivial, routine background information about a law firm, rather than making any kind of notability claim. For what it's worth, I've now added a notability claim (first law firm in Portland with a woman's name in its title), but that's based on one (local) source. If you have access to Lexis, one possible avenue for research is to see if you can find anything else about the firm's historical stance toward women lawyers/partners that is interesting. (And on that note, if the article is kept, it would definitely be worth adding a sentence or two on the late Carol Hewitt, who was a senior partner.) So far you've highlighted maybe one of the controversial cases that the firm was involved in (where they became a defendant), but there appear to be a few more of those that were high-profile and could help to make the case for (historical) notability as well, particularly if you are able to explain the specific role that the firm played within those cases, not just the fact that they happened to represent certain clients. Cielquiparle (talk) 15:22, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Cielquiparle: as noted above, that is not notability. For the love of whatever people pray to, notability on Wikipedia has never been about the notable things people/things did, such as the first this or that. It is about in-depth coverage of the topic in RS. Yes, typically people/things who do notable things end up being notable because the media then takes notes, providing the coverage/RS, but it never matters if the people/things actually do anything notable itself. For example, we have articles on every town and community, not because they did something notable, but because they are covered in RS. As to depth, I added a bunch last week that are behind paywalls that I doubt anyone has checked. Several of them provided the depth needed, but hey, let's judge without researching the topic. As to the writing style, that is what a firm has done. Not everything they do is notable, but notability has NEVER been about we only cover the notable things within the article. That directly contradicts our very long held WP:NNC. In articles we cover what people/entities do that is covered in RS. A politician is married and has kids rarely is notable in itself, but it is standard information you include in a biography. Most details in your run of the mill state legislator are not notable by themselves, same with what companies do. With law firms, who are the attorneys, what cases they handle (whether or not there is an article does not matter), what names have they gone by, and even where do they have offices is important information that should be covered. Aboutmovies (talk) 19:45, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Aboutmovies I was leaning toward "keep" before but given what you've just said, I'm now leaning toward "delete". Cielquiparle (talk) 20:17, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good to see you take that personally and have that influence your decision instead of the actual criteria. Aboutmovies (talk) 21:16, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I actually was genuinely trying to help and no, I won't be !voting in this AfD. Peace. Cielquiparle (talk) 21:41, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Cases filed have nothing to do with notability. There is no independent, in-depth analysis by reliable media for it. No sources are shared in the discussion, which proves it is notable. Lordofhunter (talk) 15:57, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Lordofhunter: as noted above, your argument of "Cases filed have nothing to do with notability" is not what notability is on Wikipeida. For the love of whatever people pray to, notability on Wikipedia has never been about the notable things people/things did, such as the first this or that. It is about in-depth coverage of the topic in RS. Yes, typically people/things who do notable things end up being notable because the media then takes notes, providing the coverage/RS, but it never matters if the people/things actually do anything notable itself. "There is no independent, in-depth analysis by reliable media for it." Yes there are, but you have to look behind paywalls, as the firm was started pre-web. "No sources are shared in the discussion, which proves it is notable." Huh? While some editors do that, I instead do the proper thing of actually editing the article to include them. As to depth, I added a bunch last week that are behind paywalls that I doubt anyone has checked as access is limited. Several of them provided the depth needed. Aboutmovies (talk) 19:45, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Here are two more articles that are entirely about the firm's actions by Nigel Jaquiss, who won a Pulitzer Prize for work around the same time as these two articles:
City Slams Ater Wynne

Playing Both Sides?

These were in the Willamette Week, which again, is a Pulitzer Prize-winning newspaper. Aboutmovies (talk) 04:17, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Both those articles are "coverage", both refer to the topic company facing a complaint and investigation by the bar over their conduct but the articles are simply regurgitating details of the complaint. This coverage is neither significant nor in-depth (WP:CORPDEPTH) and it certainly does not provide any "Independent Content" (WP:ORGIND). I previously requested that Keep !voters provide sources (including page/para numbers) which satisfy NCORP criteria for establishing notability, neither of these meet the criteria. I've accessed a number of the "paywall" sources (e.g. The Portland Business Journal, The Oregonian), those too are simply regurgitating announcements and the article is now in danger of being WP:REFBOMBED (36 references, the majority of which concern announcements, none of which meet ORGIND). HighKing⁺⁺ 11:47, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We will have to agree to disagree, as per WP:ORGIND that you cite to: "A primary test of notability is whether unrelated people with no vested interest in the subject have actually considered the company, corporation, product or service notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial, non-routine works that focus upon it." The Willamette Week is independent of the law firm, unless you think the law firm put out a press release that they were being investigate by the Bar? And I can tell you that Bar investigations that get to a formal complaint are not routine. There are about 5 attorneys per month on the naughty list in the Bar Bulletin out of 15k attorneys, and you only get listed there after discipline has been dished out. Now, are either 150 page books on the topic, no, but that is not needed.
We will also have to disagree as to significant coverage as well, as you seem to want a 150 page book or something. "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." Trivial mentions are as all of our guidelines cover, something like ... the company elevated Mr. Foo as the new boss, who has been with the company for 40 years and is a swell guy. The WW coverage is not trivial, and is significant (as are these: [1][2][3][4][5]). Not as significant as a book or a two-hour documentary on the law firm, but not trivial under the guidelines. Most articles blend both trivial mentions and significant coverage in order to flesh out an article. I use very brief mentions to help build details needed for a proper biography all the time, as some people are notable, but not notable enough for Stephen E. Ambrose to write a biography (if he were still alive).
Lastly, The Oregonian is a regional, multiple Pulitzer Prize winning paper that is 170 years old. All the O articles have a byline by professional journalists, and since several are about things not exactly good for the firm, I think its safe to say those are actually independent. The PBJ, yes, some of those articles are reguritations of press releases (those typically do not have byline to a person so those are easy to spot), but again I think we can all agree the firm would not have put out a press release saying they settled a lawsuit filed against them. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:25, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Response It appears unlikely we will reach an agreement based on your response. Nevertheless I'll attempt to provide an answer to the points you've raised but I don't intend to continue to respond to points which are more your personal opinion or wikilawyering than based on any of our guidelines.

It isn't just ORGIND, it is the entirety of the relevant NCORP guidelines. For example, where precisely is the CORPDEPTH in any of the Willamette articles (that discuss the topic company in detail)? As to ORGIND in particular, it is very obvious that the information in those articles (mainly made up of quotes and attributions) is sourced from persons who are connected to the company and/or have a "vested interest" in the outcome of the dispute. Also, if you check the section right above ORGIND you will find WP:ILLCON which states It is possible that an organization that is not itself generally notable will have a number of significant sources discussing its (alleged) illegal conduct. Sources that primarily discuss purely such conduct cannot be used to establish an organization's notability under this guideline. This topic company doesn't meet the WP:CRIME guidelines either. I also find it very un-NPOV to see that there's no mention in the article of the fact that the state bar dismissed the complaint. It is almost as if the author(s) of this article have an axe to grind don't you think?
Your second point mixes up "quantity" with "quality". As per WP:SIRS, *each* reference must meet the criteria for establishing notability - we don't take a quantity of "coverage" and merge each part to form a new whole. Also, those are all based on company announcements, therefore not intellectually independent - in other word, once you remove the parts that fail ORGIND, the remaining content fails CORPDEPTH. But to address your question (and the obvious strawman), nobody is looking for a 150 page book either. We simply require an article which is significant/in-depth and contains original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. If a company is truly notable, somebody somewhere in some publication will have written something in-depth and intellectually independent about them.
Your description of The Oregonian is the reason why it 1) the newspaper is notable and has its own article and 2) is considered a WP:RS. Nothing more. It doesn't confer some sort of automatic significance to their content or their journalists. Relying on their history to assume that all of their articles are "actually independent" is not supported anywhere in our guidelines. You should also be aware that there is a difference between sources that may be used to support facts/information *within* an article (as you've described) and sources which meet the criteria for establishing notability. You may (of course) use any WP:RS to support the information/facts/etc presented within the content of an article, but the criteria for sources used to establish notability are very different, which is what we are discussing here.

I see the number of references has now risen to 37. The easiest way for you to convince others that references exist which meet NCORP criteria is to link your WP:THREE best sources and by referencing specific paragraphs, point to why they meet NCORP criteria. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:49, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Response - I disagree. I think you are confusing significant coverage with being a very large amount of coverage, which is not what WP:SIRS or WP:CORPDEPTH actually state. If you read CORPDEPTH under "Significant coverage" it says: "Such coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond brief mentions and routine announcements, and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about the organization." (emphasis added). I have pointed out multiple times which articles go beyond brief (aka trivial) mentions or routine announcements. "... the notability guideline doesn't require that the subject is the main topic of the source material, only that it's more than a trivial mention." If you really study what we mean by trivial mentions, you will notice a theme: inclusion in lists (such as best of lists), a list of tenants in a new building, a mention in an article of people running for a political office, new destinations from a particular airline; end stop. But, if that list of the ten best new restaurants in foo in 2023 also includes two paragraphs of text discussing the cuisine, then it is no longer trivial. I know you would never agree, but that has always been my take on what trivial means. You disagree, I disagree, we all scream for ice scream. Bottomline, your interpretation of trivial is different than mine.
As to three, I listed a bunch before, and I don't care about an essay. As to the reliability of The Oregonian, that was not attempting to directly state anything about notability. That was in response to your quip of "and it certainly does not provide any "Independent Content"". My point with talking about that newspaper and the Willamette Week was to say, no, those are independent per WP:ORGIND. There are few ways for one to get information about a company that did not start with something coming from a company. You want to know when it was founded, you can go to the Sec. of State (at least in most states) and look it up, but that piece of information started with the company filing some sort of formation document. How much in revenue, at some point that comes from the company's books. And that is why by independent we have never meant completely independent. The author of the news article can take the info from topic, and as long as the do some of their own research, then it is independent for reliability/notability purposes (which WP:ORGIND basically says). For the WW article "City Slams Ater Wynne" as it says, the author took info from the bar complaint, which was filed by the city which is independent of the topic. It then ends with "Ater Wynne's attorney Brad Tellam was unavailable for comment." That means, there was no input from the topic on the article, meaning WP:ORGIND would not apply. In the Oregonian article of "Ater Wynne law firm, Perkins & Co. accounting firm pay $14.65 million to settle lawsuit from burned Grifphon investors" the info came from the attorney who sued the topic, and while the topic did provide a quote, the author clearly went beyond just that info to make it pass WP:ORGIND. With the WW article Playing Both Sides?, again the author used information from the city in their article, making it pass WP:ORGIND. So, in a round about way, there are your three.
"an axe to grind don't you think?" - You think someone has an axe to grind about a law firm that no longer exists? More importantly is the fact that it was dismissed has been in the article for like 8 years, ref #21 for those scoring at home (so who is grinding an axe?). And, since the firm did not do anything criminal (ethics violations and being sued for malpractice are not crimes, as in no one goes to jail, you just get sued or disciplined) WP:CRIME guidelines would not apply, besides that CRIME applies to individuals, which why it is part of WP:NBIO. Aboutmovies (talk) 03:16, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Response I'm really not confusing NCORP guidelines. Rather than arguing over how to interpret guidelines in a generic fashion, we can instead look to apply the guidelines in a particular and focused manner, with specific sources in mind, which is why I've asked you to provide a link to sources that you believe meet NCORP. Notably, you acknowledged my request but avoided providing an answer. There's nothing more to say until we can discuss specifics. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:34, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks @HighKing for better articulating the concerns that led me to nominate the article. Although the article does have citations from reliable sources, the content in those sources seems to be trivial to me (hires, office opening, business announcements). There also seems to be a thread of argument in this discussion that the subject firm inherits notability from its notable attorneys or its involvement as legal counsel in notable events/cases, which would seem to disagree with WP:INHERITORG. Many citations are also from trade journals, which aren't valid for WP:NCORP. Many small/medium-sized businesses fail notability and law firms are no exception. I agree that an argument based on the three best sources would significantly help clarify if this meets the GNG. QuintinK (talk) 22:52, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - These last two posts prove editors have not actually read what was posted in response. As to @QuintinK:, NO. That is exactly what I have been arguing against. Others have been !voting to delete (including your nomination, so I have no idea what your latest post is even supposed to be about) because the firm did not have any involvement in notable cases. I agree, that violates all inherited notability rules, and thus also cannot be a reason to delete an article, keep an article, send an article to bed without its dinner or anything else. As for @HighKing: I highlighted and italicized where I mention the "my best three" so you can find it since your edits above demonstrate an issue finding things. But again, we all know it doesn't matter to you, because you cannot even make a mea culpa over your accusation about an ax to grind (which violated AGF) about NPOV, an accusation the article history shows you were flat wrong about. Aboutmovies (talk) 02:50, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Response I've asked three times for you to point to sources *and* paragraph numbers - the purpose being that you had the opportunity to say "Look, this paragraph is a detailed opinion of someone who is not an interested party or affailiated in any way with the company and which contains in-depth and significant information about the company". Instead you're still making very vague statements about the entirity of each article. OK, you're therefore saying all three contain in-depth information, are significant and detailed, contain "Independent Content" and therefore meet NCORP criteria. I disagree. Here's why, in detail, those sources fail NCORP

This Willamette Week source is 7 sentences. It is a report on the City of Portland accusing "founding partner Jonathan Ater" of a conflict of interest and includes quotes from a letter written to the state bar. There is no depth of coverage. CORPDEPTH defines deep or significant coverage as "an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis or evaluation of the company". This is absent from this article, so it fails CORPDEPTH. Not only that, you say "there was no input from the topic on the article, meaning WP:ORGIND would not apply" - that is incorrect. "Intellectual Independence" refers to "interested parties", not just the topic. A customer is an "interested party". This is also evident from the list in the section on "Secondary sources" which lists "customer testimonials or complaints" as PRIMARY sources. In order for this article to be a secondary source, the journalist must have provided their own "analysis, evaluation, interpretation or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts and ideas" taken from the primary source. This is absent from this article. Finally, you say WP:CRIME does not apply. Please check out WP:ILLCON which says it is possible that sources will exist that discuss a topic company's alleged illegal conduct and sources "that primarily discuss purely such conduct cannot be used to establish an organization's notability under this guideline" but however the orgnization may still be notable under different guidelines, e.g. CRIME. This article also fails ILLCON and CRIME. So in summary, this 7 sentence article which regurgitates a customer complaint on alleged illegal conduct is absent any in-depth information on the company (failing CORPDEPTH); is absent any "Independent Content" (failing ORGIND) and; has no content other than that primarily discussing allegedly illegal conduct (failing ILLCON). In other words, it fails NCORP criteria for establishing notability.
The BizJournals source is even shorter at 6 sentences long. It is an article about a settlement. For pretty much the same reasons as above, it also fails. It has no in-depth content about the company (which would be difficult in 6 sentences anyway) (fails CORPDEPTH) and it has no "Independent Content" as it does not offer any "original and independent opinion/analysis/fact checking/investigation *about* the company (fails ORGIND). Arguably it also fails ILLCON.
This next from Willamette Week is a longer article with 18 sentences. It also simply regurgitates the complaint (in more detail) referred to in the first article above without offering any original/independent opinion/commentary/analysis from the journalist. It also does not provide any in-depth information on the company. Again, for the exact same reasons as above, this article fails CORPDEPTH, ORGIND and ILLCON.

Since these were your best THREE and none are even close to meeting NCORP guidelines, you have not convinced me that this company is notable. While you may have a different idea of how to interpret NCORP guidelines, I think those articles clearly fail without leaving any wriggle room for an argument. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:08, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm relisting this AFD discussion as comments are still coming. I recommend to the article creator, please present LINKS to your three best sources instead of burying them in a big box of text. You want to make them easy to see if you want to influence other participants here. You might feel like you are repeating yourself but answer questions arising about this article in a difrect and obvious way so now one can miss your point.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:45, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Like others here I find nothing notable about this company. As presented here, even with work to develop sourcing, it is simply a law firm. The presumed notability of being in the "top 20" (they were #20), well that is merely a list of firms by number of lawyers, which is just a bare statistic and, by the way, their 23 lawyers is a far cry from the #1 147. The other claim to fame is being the first in Portland to have a female partner in their name, that's obviously a positive statement about the company but there is no indication that this had an impact beyond the company itself. Nope, I don't find any notability. Lamona (talk) 00:54, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. In case it's helpful, the strongest looking source for making the case for notability is probably:

MacKenzie, Bill (Oct 1, 1990). "OUT OF THE ASHES COMES ATER WYNNE". The National Law Journal: 33.

But it requires Lexis or library access to view. (If I had a copy, I would summarize, but I don't at the moment.) So really, it's just a question of whether there are one or two additional sources that can contribute to notability in the WP:NCORP sense. A couple of the articles appear to have already been discussed between Aboutmovies and HighKing above. Perhaps there are others? Cielquiparle (talk) 12:12, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cielquiparle, have you seen or read this article? Or a summary? In what way is it "helpful" and the "strongest looking source" for making "the case for notability"? HighKing⁺⁺ 16:15, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Aboutmovies Do you have access to Lexis? If not, I can go to the library next week and get a copy? Cielquiparle (talk) 16:19, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cielquiparle and HighKing (and anyone else interested), I have LexisNexis access and can say that the "OUT OF THE ASHES COMES ATER WYNNE" source is a brief ~200-word announcement about a split at Lindsay, Hart, Neil & Weigler. Here's the part about Ater Wynne: "A new firm emerging from the split, Ater Wynne Hewitt Dodson & Skerritt, now has 58 lawyers, including 31 partners. Name partners include Jonathan Ater, Steven E. Wynne and Daniel H. Skerritt, former heads of Lindsay Hart's regulatory, business and litigation practices, respectively. Ater Wynne has taken over about 85 percent of the old firm's office space. The new firm has also taken over Lindsay Hart's offices in Seattle, San Francisco and Washington, D.C." I wouldn't consider that enough to satisfy CORPDEPTH, but I'm not !voting at the moment since I haven't reviewed all the sources. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:17, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Extraordinary Writ! (Saved us all a very disappointing trip to the library.) Cielquiparle (talk) 06:53, 12 January 2023 (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.