Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Cochran 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 no consensus. The discussion is ever so slightly leaning toward article retention, but the notions for merging are also prominent. It's clear that the article won't be deleted per this discussion. Further discussion regarding a potential merge can continue on an article talk page if desired. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:01, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

The Cochran Firm

The Cochran Firm (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "he 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." It was deprodded by User:DGG with the following summary: "given the great notability of the founder, this is at least mergeable". I don't think there's much to merge, however, through I guess it's a possibility; however I don't think this should remain as a stand alone article. Let's discuss this here. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:45, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

• Comment This is the firm founded by Cochrane when he returned to private practice in 1983, before any of his famous cases. All of his subsequent work was done as principal in the firm, he retired in 2002,and died in 2005. Some of the notable cases in the article on the firm occurred after that, and might be considered sufficiently important to show the continuing notability of the firm. DGG ( talk ) 21:23, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

• Merge/Redirect to Johnnie Cochran; I don't think it quite makes it as a standalone article. It's a large national law firm; you'd think its size and star power alone might get it to WP:CORP. But most of the coverage is passing mentions, for example when a notable defendant hires them or when one of their attorneys wins a significant case, rather than anything about the firm itself. I found and added to the article one reference which is significantly about the firm. There were other possible sources, describing various lawsuits against the firm by clients or former employees, but those stories did not get picked up by the mainstream press and I don't regard them as significant enough to add to the article or to count toward notability. --MelanieN (talk) 00:34, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
• Keep because the firm is still reasonably notable, but as an editorial decision I can see merger as a reasonable post-AfD decision, since one or two paragraphs about the post-Cochran firm might be enough. After Cochran's death, a National Law Journal article entitled "Cochran's firm survives him" described the firm as "the first national plaintiffs' firm" [1], and its activities have remained in the news (though certainly not at the same level as when Cochran was alive). MelanieN has already noted the public controversy about the firm's direction as reported in the LA Times.[2] As another example, co-founder Jock Smith's activities for the firm, and his unexpected death, were covered in multiple media [3][4][5][6][7][8]. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:56, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 06:47, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

• Keep/No Merge The length of time the article has been up not withstanding, I believe the importance of the firm within the African American community, particularly within Los Angeles, should be considered. The firm name and legacy is symbolic of the law being the only vehicle to achieve meaningful change in our society, especially to those that feel marginalized by the system. An independent article for the firm is warranted by it's founding through Johnnie Cochran and his name recognition, but also for what it continues to represent to those readers who do look upon the firm as more than just a business founded by a celebrity. Much in the way a reader would be curious about the history of a Haliburton independent of Dick Cheney, or a Microsoft independent of Bill Gates, readers for whom civil and human rights violations are a real part of everyday life will equally find the history of the Cochran Firm noteworthy. The article also serves the spirit of wikipedia in allowing a forum for forming the best factual historical compendium of a culturally controversial entity. Please consider leaving in place.--CAcochran (talk) 17:03, 16 April 2015 (UTC) — Cacochran (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:09, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

• Keep/Close Searches on the firm name bring up numerous secondary sources in locations throughout the United States, reporting both case work and opinions on the firm, even within the last few years. These are just a sample: I believe that does meet the requirement for an organization to warrant an article. Given that the discussion has been relisted twice, I would like to move that we close this discussion and leave the article in place. Thanks --Cacochran (talk) 19:45, 24 April 2015 (UTC) — Cacochran (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Merge/Redirect as suggested by MelanieN. The subject of this AfD has been mentioned in a multitude of reliable sources including in books and in the news. That being said, never has the subject of this AfD been the primary subject of any of those sources. Members of the subject have received significant coverage, and clients of the subject have received significant coverage, but never the organization/law firm itself. Therefore, not receiving significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, and only receiving mention, the subject does fall within the scope of the notable late Johnnie Cochran. What is presently verified can be merged into that article, and if sufficient reliable sources with significant coverage can be found in the future to recreate this article are found, or if that article meets WP:SIZERULE, then it is possible that this article can be recreated, but not before then.

The sources above added on 24 April are primarily mentioning the subject of this AfD in passing and are not the primary subject of those sources. Crain's New York Business could be argued to be significant coverage, but is more about the real estate move, and only gives a brief paragraph that is specifically about the subject of this AfD. This source from the South Texas Record, is primarily about the lawsuit; although the subject of this AfD is the plaintiff, the lawsuit is the primary subject of the source.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:47, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

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.