Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP


 * 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. A significant number of Reliable sources have been found establishing the subject's notability. Deletion concerns have been addressed. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant    (talk)  02:59, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non-Notable law firm, no coverage, fails both WP:GNG and WP:CORP Mt  king  (edits)  05:08, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 22:39, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 22:39, 13 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - large, well-known law firm that is often in the news; see, , , , , , etc. Bearian (talk) 22:15, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Lets look at those sources
 * No.1 - Is a one paragraph on a law website about the firm cutting new staff pay
 * No.2 - Is a directory profile.
 * No.3 - "Partner Pleads Not Guilty in DUI" : NOT about the firm.
 * No.4 - Is a court filing : NOT about the firm.
 * No.5 - Has one paragraph on Richard Mallory, a partner : NOT about the firm.
 * No.6 - Has one paragraph on how the firm looked at it's online spending and "was surprised to learn that some types of exposure online were very low-cost (like blogging) while others were extremely expensive (like the various lawyer-rating services.)"
 * So in no way can these be considered to be significant coverage of the firm. Mt  king  (edits)  23:56, 14 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep, I'm seeing a good deal of secondary source coverage in research. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 16:41, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Would you mind posting them, as I would be more than willing to withdraw if that is the case, as all I can see are mentions and quotes from staff, nothing that addresses the firm directly. Mt  king  (edits)  22:14, 15 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - promotional article for a run of the mill not noteworthy legal company. Off2riorob (talk) 22:19, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment &mdash; one just has to have patience in research to find thousands of secondary sources, for example, . Cheers, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 05:12, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Just looked at most of the first page of thoes, they seam to be reprints (if that is the right word in this digital age) of firm media releases or reports about people going to work there in specialist trade publications. Mt  king  (edits)  05:37, 16 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. They are reasonably large and well-known, especially in Southern California, where the business pages regularly cover the comings and goings of their attorneys and, perhaps more significantly, report on them as one of the more significant firms. I agree that a lot of what comes up in searches is marketing material, but there's also significant independent coverage: for example, a 2009 report on their cuts in associate salaries as setting a trend for the profession; a 2005 report that Anaheim would be hiring them as outside counsel to deal with the NFL; a 1993 report including them as one of the significant SoCal law firms leading a then-popular trend of opening offices in Mexico.  There are certainly other law firms out there that have a higher public profile, but I think Allen Matkins gets enough. --Arxiloxos (talk) 06:28, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note &mdash; the sheer number of acknowledgments in scholarly academic journal articles alone is reason enough to Keep. Cheers, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 14:47, 16 November 2011 (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.