Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cravath System

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 keep. (non-admin closure) Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 09:50, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cravath System[edit]

[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)

This page has existed for about 10 years, but I think it is an ad. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:13, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, tentatively. I am not sure. Cravath Swaine is in fact one of the very most prestigious law firms in the world, and their internal history sourcing is far more signficant than other sources within other organizations. For an example about sourcing in management consulting and accountings, somewhat related fields also with high-powered firms based in NYC and Chicago, I think the internal original history stories of McKinsey & Co. and about Arthur Andersen are pretty darn reliable too. Yes, the memoires of firm founders and official history books of various salient historic professional firms are obviously affiliated with the subjects, are not very independent. But Cravath's formula for success may well have been very significant and original (I don't really know for sure) and it may have been copied by many other law firms, and it may be historically important in law firm management. Is there an article on law firm management, by the way? It could perhaps be merged to such, or revised/expanded to cover the broader topic. Like there is a current AFD going on now about restaurant management, an obviously encyclopdic topic which will end in "Keep" result. --Doncram (talk) 03:31, 12 March 2019 (UTC) Revised. 04:09, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. This source used in the article, though labelled as a "blog" is pretty darn scholarly like and seems independent. I am inclined to believe that the "Cravath system" is a thing, and an important thing worth covering in our encyclopedia. Sure, the article could be improved and/or tagged for improvement in some ways, but ~~wp:AFDISNOTFORIMPROVEMENT (?) or whatever~~wp:AFDISNOTFORCLEANUP. --Doncram (talk) 03:34, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cravath, Swaine & Moore is a working link to the article on the law firm. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:43, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, i have just redirected former redlink "Cravath Swaine" to that. --Doncram (talk) 04:09, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:41, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I explained my reasons for creating the article from red links on the talk page. A significant number of legal firms and consulting companies adopted this system. Tangurena (talk) 21:57, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I see that Talk page discussion is intelligent and includes significant references, including

How the "Cravath System" Created the Bi-Modal Distribution
The Cravath System and the Demise of Large Firm Business as We Know It

There is discussion there that at one point in time, at least, the article "mixes reporting on the original Cravath System and describing subsequent developments at Cravath and other firms. This is confusing." Which was or is to be addressed by editing, not AFD. And also suggestion that "up or out" deserves its own article, which is also not part of AFD.

I voted "Keep" above and feel more sure now that should be the correct outcome here. --Doncram (talk) 05:04, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it was a popular management system. Bearian (talk) 17:43, 17 March 2019 (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.