- 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. But merge Troutman Sanders and Pepper Hamilton, the predecessor firms, into this article. Sandstein 16:08, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Troutman Pepper (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
insufficient evidence for notability o this law firm. The references are mere notices of routine business events, or a report of one oft he many cases every law firm by their very nature will engage in. It is not notable to simply win one suit for wrongful conviction. A google news search shows nothing more than announcements or their own advertisements. DGG ( talk ) 05:05, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I should note that Troutman Pepper has itself been around for a fairly short time; its two predecessor law firms are both of considerable age and are clearly notable themselves. RexSueciae (talk) 00:30, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete insufficient coverage for establishing notability, indicates lack of notability. Brayan ocaner (talk) 22:05, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, but with "Troutman Pepper" being the title of the article (so I guess merge with Troutman Sanders). I don't know how familiar y'all are with law firms, but Troutman Pepper is pretty well up there. Most of the really noteworthy events described in reliable sources will have been under the name Troutman Sanders, that is true. It should be common sense to simply continue the article with information on its post-merger operations, especially since the firm kept the Troutman name. RexSueciae (talk) 01:44, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- On reflection, I am changing my vote to Keep. It was pointed out to me that both Troutman Sanders and Pepper Hamilton, the predecessor firms to Troutman Pepper, have wiki articles. The article for Pepper Hamilton contains the following line about the post-merger law firm: "The combined firm has 1,100 attorneys, making it the largest purely American law firm and one of the 50 largest law firms in the world." That characteristic all but guarantees notability at *some* point. Yes, Troutman Pepper is new, and hasn't had that much coverage of its activities thus far. Even so, I can find right off the bat multiple news articles about them. You'll need a subscription to law.com but it's clear that the legal press thinks that Troutman Pepper is notable; the firm has received coverage in multiple reliable sources. Consider also that Bloomberg Law, one of the premier legal research platforms, published this commentary article from several Troutman Pepper attorneys (two partners and two associates) weighing in on the activities of state attorneys general. Would they do that if Troutman Pepper were not a reputable law firm? Finally, consider AboveTheLaw (the TMZ of the legal industry, with about the same reputation, although it does tend to have its finger on the pulse of things), which has multiple articles tagged Troutman Pepper, including some promising news stories on the law firm awarding bonuses to its attorneys. tl;dr it's notable, it's got sources, and sure as anything it's gonna have more sources in the near future. RexSueciae (talk) 00:30, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:31, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep for the reasons well outlined by RexSueciae. Although a new firm, its predecessors began in the 1890s and combined is now 49th of the AmLaw 100 firms even more notable as a major 23 office, 1,000+ attorneys, American and world law firm. With all the stub entries not subject to deletion, this entry should be treated the same with it being left for further edits and additions. Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 17:49, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - large firm that was created through the merger of two earlier firms, both considered notable enough to have their own articles. History just needs to be cleaned up. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 21:57, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge all 3 firms into a single article. Davidgoodheart (talk) 01:14, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge' all 3 firms into a single article. I apologize for not having thought of this possibility. DGG ( talk ) 05:50, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I ran into a similar situation when I saw a proposal to merge J. Walter Thomson and Wunderman into one article. Here's how I addressed it Wunderman Thompson. The two previous articles were rewritten into the past tense, and then the post merger history goes in the new article. It's a lot less work than trying to merge, given the amount of each predecessor's history. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 19:27, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- The hatnote is a good idea. Went ahead and added it in, just so people can't miss the two predecessor firms. RexSueciae (talk) 04:15, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 04:05, 24 January 2022 (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.