Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Graham & James

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 no consensus. A Train^talk 16:24, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Graham & James

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

Lack of significant coverage by reliable third party sources. There are mentions of this law firm in reliable sources, but not the significant coverage that would get it past notability. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:23, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:16, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:17, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 13:56, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 09:22, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't see any claim to notability. On the positive side, it does have 1 reference to an independent reliable source, but that's not enough. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 23:42, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Although lengthy sources directly about this old law firm are not easy to find, it was an important player in the law business for decades (especially on the West Coast). Sources exist (200 or so at HighBeam, dozens at latimes.com & sfgate.com) and the content about this firm's history is relevant, at least, to the histories of the multiple notable firms that absorbed different parts of this firm as it broke apart. Arguably the content could be added to those firms' articles but I think it would be clearer for the reader to keep all of this firm's history together in one place. --Arxiloxos (talk) 01:19, 29 July 2017 (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.