Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rutan & Tucker

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) –Davey2010 • (talk) 16:27, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rutan & Tucker

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

Non-notable law firm. Run of the mill firm with citations indicating that they exist and do business, but little more. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:28, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I can understand the nomination's citation of WP:MILL and ultimately I might agree. On the other hand, this is the biggest law firm in the nation's sixth largest county, and plenty of potential sources exist (for example, 292 hits at latimes.com) if one wants to dig through the mostly routine materials for more substantive content. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:51, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's big, it has coverage in newspapers. It is "a player" with role in news that Wikipedia readers could well want to know about. Some coverage of its size and history and role in important cases and so on is appropriate. --do ncr am 16:05, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's worh keeping as it is a big firm in the area, with many media coverage on local, regional and national newspapers.
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]

The firm is mentioned in a lot of many other sources, so I guess notability should not be an issue to this company. Rockencsh (talk) 09:38, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "mentioned in a lot of many other sources [sic]" is not the same as significant coverage in reliable sources. The links Rockencsh|Rockencsh has provided all represent mentions in passing (i.e. articles about other topics where the name Rutan & Tucker happens to pop up). This type of menion in passing is common for law firms, where their cases may receive some coverage. That makes the case notable, not the firm. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:05, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. The point I would make about the first one of those four items above, [5], is that readers of that news article could be interested in looking up Rutan and Tucker, which apparently produced a study/paper about some coastal issue. If the Wikipedia article says that Rutan & Tucker is a big established law-firm, that's helpful in evaluating the study somewhat, the firm's name is behind it. (Feel free to insert lawyer joke here, the only good lawyer is a ...). Agree with WikiDan61 that the mention is not significant coverage about the firm itself. I am just saying again that an article on this topic would be helpful to have. And I tend to think some basic facts about the firm, such as number of lawyers or number of cases in some recent year, should be available and can be provided in a short article. --do ncr am 00:59, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Doncram: Your argument appears to be that people will evaluate Rutan & Tucker's credibility based on the presence of their Wikipedia article, but that's putting the cart before the horse. The firm needs to be notable before we create the article, not because we create the article. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 02:26, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not on the presence of their Wikipedia article, but on what it says about the firm, based on reliable sources. I do believe the firm is wikipedia-notable; i rather assume it is because it is so large and there will be coverage about it. It would be nice if someone would go through 300 LATimes references and lots of Orange County Register references and so on, to add material to the article establishing notability to your and others' satisfaction, but I am rather confident that can be done. So we don't need to have this AFD.... Do you really believe this is not going to have adequate sources to satisfy even yourself? Anyhow, you can vote Delete and i can vote Keep based on our best expectations of what is really available (not just what is found and added to the article). Bye for now. --do ncr am 03:44, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, i'd rather hear your belief before i share stuff easily found in a U.S. national newspapers database, but how about:

"A Rutan & Tucker century // The largest O.C. law firm envisions expanding beyond base of government clients during its next 100 years." Martinez, Brian. Orange County Register [Santa Ana, Calif] 21 Jan 2006: 1. That is a 602 word article. $80 million billings and 145 lawyers in 2005. Article includes a timeline illustration of firm from "1906 -- Alexander Wallace Rutan co-founds Daniels & Rutan, with offices in Santa Ana and Fullerton." to "2004 -- Public Law Center names Rutan & Tucker "Law Firm of the Year.""
A different account in 1991, "Firm likes its law orderly Rutan & Tucker rises to the top in Orange County through stability: [MORNING Edition], Gregg Zoroya:The Orange County Register. Orange County Register [Santa Ana, Calif] 13 Sep 1991: e01, is a 772 word article. It includes photo of partners and a graphic showing "average number of partners and associates during each calendar year (from 1967-1991)". Somewhat differently, it mentions Rutan going into practice in 1906 but dates the firm starting in 1936: "A.W. [Alexander Wallace Rutan], whose tuburculosis, contracted in his 50s, led him to take a 90-day leave from Orange County each year, joined forces with a retired Idaho judge, James B. Tucker, in 1936 to form Rutan & Tucker."
"Preview $25-Million Home for Rutan & Tucker: [Orange County Edition] Flagg, Michael. Los Angeles Times (pre-1997 Fulltext) [Los Angeles, Calif] 10 May 1990: 6. 229 word article.

Done, about notability, really.... --do ncr am 04:02, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:58, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - though the nominator's comments are not far from the truth. The sources cited above confirm, "they exist and do business" but to me they confirm they have existed for quite some time and do big business with an often state or national focus. I would think this is the sort of law firm readers would expect us to have coverage of. We're not talking about an ice cream shop with 3 employees and just enough coverage to get them over the WP:CORPDEPTH line. It's a big firm with 150 attorneys and just enough coverage to get them over the WP:CORPDEPTH line. St★lwart¹¹¹ 07:02, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The sources mentioned above indicate notability. James500 (talk) 08:04, 23 July 2014 (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.