Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Armstrong Teasdale

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:35, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Armstrong Teasdale

[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)

My name is Monica and I work for Armstrong Teasdale. The firm was hoping to improve the page but was advised it may not qualify for one in the first place. I am not aware of any national publications with a broad audience that have published in-depth profiles on the firm to meet WP:CORP. Most of the citations are articles that mention Armstrong Teasdale, but the firm is not the primary subject.

If the page is kept, I will endeavor to remove promotion and bring it in line with Wikipedia's content policies in a manner that complies with WP:COI. Mkriegel4141 (talk) 19:05, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Mkriegel4141 (talk) 19:05, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:10, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:11, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Perhaps unsurprisingly for a 13-office firm founded 120 years ago, there appears to be a lot of coverage on it. Examples: 1; 2; 3; 4. The notability standards for companies require "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject," which appears to be the case here. --Usernameunique (talk) 01:00, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. The sources listed by Usernameunique (talk · contribs).
2. Lovelace, Ryan (2019-03-14). "Armstrong Teasdale Nudges Revenue Higher Amid East Coast Debut. The St. Louis-based firm, now with two offices in the Northeast, saw declining partner profits and a modest bump in revenue last year". Law.com. Retrieved 2021-02-21.
  The article notes, "Thus far in 2019, Armstrong Teasdale has attracted attention for its high-profile representation of Payless ShoeSource Inc., which has filed for bankruptcy for the second time in two years."
3. Cole, Heather (2008-01-14). "Armstrong's shrinking Kansas City office focuses on litigation". Missouri Lawyers Weekly.
  The article notes, "Armstrong Teasdale's Kansas City office is the product of a 1989 merger with the then-Dietrich, Davis, Dicus, Rowlands, Schmitt & Gorman, whose partners at that time included former Kansas City mayor Ilus Winfield Davis. ... Among the high-profile litigation cases handled by the office's attorneys in 2007 were the defense of a lawsuit filed by the family of a St. Louis firefighter who died in a fire at an industrial building in 2002. Hursh and other Armstrong attorneys represented safety gear manufacturer Survivair Respirators and its parent company, Bacou-Dalloz, which is now Sperian Protection. The plaintiffs, who claimed the firefighter's safety equipment and air mask were defective, won a $27 million verdict. ... Another of the office's attorneys, Jerry King, helped win a defense verdict for a fuel tank parts manufacturer and service company in a product liability trial brought by the family of a tanker-truck driver killed in a fuel explosion."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Armstrong Teasdale to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 08:50, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The applicable guideline is not GNG but WP:NCORP. Both of your sources fails NCORP. The law.com reference is entirely based on an interview with managing partner David Braswell (also available here. The Missouri Lawyers Weekly reference is based entirely on an interivew with the Kansas City managing partner, the extracts you've pulled are either attributable to him or standard boiler-plate descriptions which appear on several articles (e.g. see this story for the exact same quote as the first line you extracted). Both fail the "Independent Content" test as per WP:ORGIND. HighKing 20:58, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:27, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations is WP:NCORP and applies a stricter interpretation of requirements than for other topics. In short, WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. That means, nothing that relies on company information or announcements or interviews, no echo-chamber stuff, etc. None of the references in the article or in this AfD meet the criteria and having searched I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria. Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing 20:57, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HighKing, it's just simply not true to say that the general notability guidelines don't apply. "Organizations are considered notable if they meet one of the following sourcing requirements: ... the primary criteria for organizations, or [] the general notability guideline". In any event, your above analysis seriously misinterprets the notability criteria for organizations. First, you quote the criteria as requiring that a source must contain independent content. But then, you say a source must not rely on any "company information or announcements or interviews" and the like—and standard that would disqualify any article in which the diligent journalist called up the relevant companies for comment before publication. In other words, while the criteria actually say what a source must include, you are claiming the criteria say what a source must not include.

Meanwhile, you haven't addressed the thousands of sources (2,691, at last count) found via newspapers.com, let alone the examples provided above. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:21, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Usernameunique, I disagree with most of what you've said. First if you go back and read what I said, I did not say that GNG don't apply. Rather, I'm pointing out an article about a company/organization *must* meet NCORP criteria. So the point I'm making is that saying this article meets GNG is irrelevant, because it must meet NCORP which is a stricter standard. If it meets NCORP, it will automatically have met GNG. Second you extract a quote from NCORP to show that it is either/or between NCORP and GNG but fail to see that the section in question is entitled "Alternate criteria for specific types of organizations" and this topic falls outside of these criteria. I would also add that this section of NCORP appears to be out-of-date with the latest changes made to WP:N policy where WP:SNG was recently updated and specifically states that SNGs can also provide examples of sources and types of coverage considered significant for the purposes of determining notability, such as the treatment of book reviews for our literature guidelines and the strict significant coverage requirements spelled out in the SNG for organizations and companies.. Third the purpose of WP:ORGIND is to ensure that the article isn't just another part of a company's PR echo-chamber - that is, the article isn't simply repeating information provided by the company or its officials. So when you say that a "diligent journalist called up the relevant companies for comment before publication", can you point to where it says that in the article? Or is that an assumption? Can you easily and clearly point to "independent opinion/analysis/investigation" *clearly* attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject, or is it just the journalist repeating the same information provided by the company or its officials? Finally Saying but there's thousands of references isn't a legitimate argument. If you've found a good reference, link it below and I'll take a look and if its good I'll change my !vote. HighKing 18:55, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:41, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per my longstanding standards at User:Bearian/Standards#Law_firms. Bearian (talk) 18:30, 10 March 2021 (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.