Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Katten Muchin Rosenman

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) —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 15:31, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Katten Muchin Rosenman

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

A legal firm with no evidence of notability. The first ref is self written and others show it is a nice place to work according to one web-site. A minor controversy is hardly a notable event and then nothing that demonstrates notability. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 01:01, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:44, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:44, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:44, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is the merger of two firms that have WP articles. They are listed on many best of lists.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:55, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That something else exists is not an indicator of notability. It is equally possible that the other two firms also lack notability. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 13:06, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:12, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a large, prominent law firm whose activities have received substantial coverage over the years. In addition to the items already mentioned, this firm was the subject of substantial coverage for its involvement in a well-publicized race discrimination lawsuit that led to a controversial $2.5 million jury verdict, followed by an also controversial 2-1 reversal by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals and a widely-reviewed book about all of this entitled The Good Black. A few examples of coverage (lots more can be seen in the usual searches): New York Times [1], Harvard Law Review [2], Chicago Tribune [3], Washington Post [4][5]. --Arxiloxos (talk) 19:45, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And here are a couple of articles about the firm's representation of Michael Jackson and other entertainment figures. Chicago Tribune [6], Los Angeles Daily Journal [7]. --Arxiloxos (talk) 22:02, 30 March 2018 (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.