Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dechert

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. Before renominating, consider redirecting to one of the lists it appears on per WP:ATD-R. So Why 15:46, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dechert[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)

Current references are largely not WP:INDEPENDENT or are only fleeting in character. A BEFORE search finds a plethora of references, however, all seem to be WP:ROUTINE for law firms such as elevation of associates to partners, cursory inclusion in stories noting it is the counsel for a litigant, or press releases. Chetsford (talk) 01:37, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 11:16, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 11:16, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - I removed a lot of promotional info and a self-serving award section, which took with it almost all of the references. This article has been around for 12 years - yet nobody saw any interest in adding any reliable sources. There are some - you have to Google "Dechert lawsuit" versus just Dechert. They've been hit over the years and recently with multiple lawsuits by people they fired or who otherwise had issues with the firm. I think with the size of the firm (928 attorneys and 35th largest in the US [[1]]), the notable alumni and the moderate sourcing I can Google (which isn't yet in the article), this just squeaks by. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 06:53, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

While I saw the reporting on lawsuits they've received I'd characterize any non-precedent establishing court case against a mid-to-large sized company as WP:ROUTINE. Companies are sued daily for various employee grievances and all the coverage of those Dechert occasionally gets are limited to specialty media like Law.com and Above the Law. They're not exactly making the front page of the Washington Post and they're not breaking ground on new case law. Being the "35th largest in X country" at anything doesn't exactly plus me. And, having notable former employees does not infer notability per WP:INHERITED. Chetsford (talk) 15:18, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 17:39, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's why it's weak versus normal. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:02, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently. Chetsford (talk) 15:09, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 10:25, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete

Doesn't meet notability criteria as per WP:ORGCRITE. Simply existing doesn't make it notable and coverage appears to be routine. Wikipedia isn't a PR website.CoronaryKea (talk) 11:32, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A large law firm with international presence [2][3] should be notable. Hzh (talk) 14:27, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Easy Keep - Firm is on the lists of World's largest law firms by revenue and largest U.S. law firms by profits-per-partner; the other firms on both lists (including those with much lower rankings) have pages with similar content and are not targeted for deletion. Msclguru (talk)

the other firms on both lists ... have pages with similar content and are not targeted for deletion Per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, the fact that we have inappropriate content in one section of WP isn't reason to include it across WP. If you can provide the names of the other two law firms on both lists I'll be happy to tag them for deletion, though. Chetsford (talk) 23:25, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:13, 3 August 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.