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! 10:28, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lowenstein Sandler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

this is mostly a list of services, They seem to have been involved in no cases that are notable by WP standards. This was originally contributed in 2007, where standards were lower DGG ( talk ) 05:12, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:39, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:39, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Lowenstein is a pretty notable firm in the American legal world IMHO. For example, a Google News search shows quite a few recent articles about cases they are handling and attorneys that are joining or leaving the firm.^[1] Likewise, Law360 reports 1,631 articles that reference them and 1,201 cases that have been covered in the media that they are in some way associated with.^[2] That said, I agree that the article, as written is not sufficient to merit inclusion in Wikipedia. My point is only to say that I think this is an article that could certainly meet the notability requirement. So I favor keeping and either adding some templates regarding notability and lack of sources or, at most, moving the page to draft and letting someone else work on improving it. Just my 2 cents. DocFreeman24 (talk) 04:06, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Vague lists of links are not helpful - we know the firm exists, what we need are references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations as per WP:NCORP is for multiple sources (at least two) of 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. None of the references in the article meet the criteria and having searched I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria. Topic fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:57, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I respectfully disagree with DGG. Based on the notable lawyers in the firm, and its WP:SIGCOV, it easy passes my standards for law firms. Bearian (talk) 21:13, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment WP:NCORP is the applicable guideline here, but it was not written with law firms specifically in mind, so we need to find analogies in using its criteria. According to NCORP, routine articles bout staff changes are not usable sources for notability, so I think that applies to the sources about lawyers leavingor entering the firm. Routine articles about the routine business of sales to X Y & Z or about what non-notable customers a firm has does not meet NCoRP, so articles about cases dod not count either unless the cases are notable in the Wikipedia sense. The argument that the firm is important is the argument I would use in advocating replacing the GNG guidelines by rational criteria, but , though I keep trying, it does not have consensus or seem likely to. What we've been doing instead is modifying the aceptable sources to yield some degree of rationality or conformity with the RW conception of notability--NCORP has been a particularly succesful effort in this direction. DGG ( talk ) 04:46, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It seems easy to find coverage such as this and so WP:NEXIST applies: "The absence of sources or citations in an article ... does not indicate that a subject is not notable." Our policy is that "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." See also WP:BEFORE; WP:IGNORINGATD; WP:NOTCLEANUP. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:49, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  This is not a convincing source. The page linked to in this trade industry guide literally says "The Firm Says", indicating that the content provided is not independent. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 16:09, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The source is a compilation of diversity programs at "the country's top law firms". This naturally includes information supplied by those companies. The content establishes notability because there is editorial content, oversight and selection. It is rich in detail and so quite suitable for our purpose. Of course, their diversity program is just one aspect but it's easy to find other details such as this – an account of an acquisition that didn't go well. Such sources indicate that the firm is substantial and that there's plenty to find if you will only just look. And it's the nominator's job to do a detailed source search, not mine. My !vote stands. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:25, 9 November 2020 (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.