Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Levin Papantonio Law Firm

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:35, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Levin Papantonio Law Firm[edit]

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. Majority of the article concerns biographies of partners; Fred Levin already has its own article; so does Reubin Askew and Mike Papantonio - those sections should be merged or deleted. The sources cited for the company, and those I see on the web, refer to it in passing - I don't think that's sufficient to prove notability. Ref 8 is a good example (with the quote included in the article): it concerns trial lawyers in general, and has nothing to do with the company in question. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:42, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:28, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:28, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:28, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:35, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:23, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per detailed nomination. I could find nothing to add. Boleyn (talk) 20:13, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unable to find sourcing that would change the analysis above. I would have no objection, after deletion, to the creation of a redirect from this title to the lead partner. --j⚛e decker ^talk 21:05, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Young, Josh (2014). And Give Up Showbiz?: How Fred Levin Beat Big Tobacco, Avoided Two Murder Prosecutions, Became a Chief of Ghana, Earned Boxing Manager of the Year, and Transformed American Law. Dallas: BenBella Books. ISBN 1940363411. Retrieved 2015-04-15.
  The book notes from the Google Books snippet view:
  Levin-Papantonio became a giant in the field, with lawyers all over the country consulting them to handle their cases. The firm performs the work and extends the money, and the lawyer referring the case gets a piece of the action, if and when it...
2. Offit, Paul (2013). Autism's False Prophets: Bad Science, Risky Medicine, and the Search for a Cure. New York: Columbia University Press. ISBN 0231517963. Retrieved 2015-04-15.
  The book notes:
  Walter Olson has followed the career of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Olson is the author of The Rule of Lawyers and The Litigation Explosion. Called "an intellectual guru of tort reform by the Washington Post, Olson has helped to shape the debate on tort reform, and his publications have been cited in Supreme Court opinions. "[Kennedy] is a number of different things," said Olson. "He is a professor at Pace University Law School. He is the chief prosecuting attorney for the Hudson Riverkeepers. And he is also an attorney with one of the largest and best mass tort law firms in the country." It is this last association that has most intrigued Olson.
  In 2000, Kennedy joined a group of trial lawyers to sue pork producers in the South and Midwest. During the litigation, the Associated Press ran an article that quoted Kennedy as well as a lawyer named Mike Papantonio. Although Kennedy and Papantonio were described as representing two different organizations, their appearance in the same article wasn't a coincidence. "Michael Papantonio is a flamboyant, very well known personal-injury lawyer who has been involved in a lot of mass tort cases," says Olson. "He is the second named partner in the law firm of Levin Papantonio, one of the best known mass tort firms. They were involved in tobacco litigation. They were involved in asbestos. They have eighteen different product-liability areas that are important enough for them to list [on their Web site]. They are a very rich, very successful firm. And they are not a firm that incidentally does plaintiffs' work. They are very close to the glowing heart of the product-liability industry. A firm of that sort, even if it doesn't list vaccine litigation as one of its major activities, is well aware of the large amounts that could be made if it cracks open. The firm doesn't list what Kennedy's financial arrangements are, but that there are financial arrangements is certainly implied by the fact that he is 'of counsel' to the firm."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow the law firm Levin Papantonio to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 00:25, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: commentary on sources would be helpful Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:05, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:05, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Cunard did a good job. I am withdrawing this nomination. Ping Spartaz. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:40, 17 April 2015 (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.