Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Choate, Hall & Stewart


 * 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. Sufficient consensus after article's improvements. (non-admin closure) Cavarrone 11:16, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Choate, Hall & Stewart

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

See my extensive PROD and changes here and also here which showed this was not only being used as an advertisement and that alone, the one source that was added post-PROD is actually only a republished company PR, I will state again that not only had my own searches not found better, Newspapers Archives once again are simply showing job hirings and other company events. Simply being from 1899 and one of the largest means nothing if the company is and has only been known for working and being involved with its clients, and therefore we would still need actual coverage, and convincing ones at that, for an acceptable article, and stating the obvious: non-PR. As I still confirm my PROD, I will note again this was clearly being used by multiple new accounts for only this article. SwisterTwister  talk  18:24, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  18:24, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep, assuming it's all true. We have tended to keep stubs on older law firms. This also meets my longstanding standards for law firms. Bearian (talk) 14:02, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:57, 21 October 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete WP is not a business directory. I see no claim to notability here.  It has survived for more than a century, but that is not enough without other coverage. MB 00:39, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 23:34, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - Nothing indicates whether or why the subject is notable. It appears to be just another law firm.--Rpclod (talk) 00:56, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete -- I've looked for sources, but was finding only directory listings & references to a somewhat notorious figure that ones worked there. Simply being an old firm is not enough. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:36, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete I don't see the required secondary coverage so that we can write an article. Notable law firms receive coverage about important clients (for example like, ) or they receive coverage if they have been involved in any notable cases. In this case, I only see passing mentions or routine hiring news in business journals. Hardly any significant coverage in a mainstream media source. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:45, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Neutral I still don't see enough for a keep, but this is honestly borderline. There may be sources out there which need some digging. At this point, I guess a no-consensus close and a revisit after a year would be a good outcome. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 18:48, 12 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep Another of our myriad articles on major topics (in this case a law firm) that merely needs sorucing. Even a quick search on google books turned up the fact that Alger Hiss worked there (in a bio of Hiss).   This is a notable, powerhouse law firm, and has been one for a century.E.M.Gregory (talk) 03:48, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
 * sourcing Here's an article in the WSJ, citing the Boston Globe on Choate, Hall taking a pioneering role among law firms moving into investment banking Watch Out Hedge Funds, Here Come the Law Firms, ; here is a searsh of Choat Hall on WSJ.com with over 30 hits ; here his s search of Choate Hall on NYTimes.com with over 70 hits (break-out quote from the first hit in that search, a 1989 article about Boston Brahmin law firms asserting that even among such a group, "Choate, Hall & Stewart is considered stuffy.) Point is: the sources to prove notability and build a good article exist.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:58, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * More on sources. Here, for example is an article I clicked on in the course of scanning the over 50 hits a search of "Choate, Hall" called up form the Boston Globe. The article describes ethical questions raised about the undisclosed by apparently massive fees earned by partners involved as trustees accused of dawdling for years in settling the charitable trust left by a wealthy client to charity - the longer the estate took to settle the more the lawyers earned and the less the charities ultimately got.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:03, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The problem with deleting article on a major law firm is not only that the links form the many notable former members are useful, although this is true. But that the big law firms are major power players in political and civic affairs, and articles about power players and the games they play are useful.  So, yes, Nom's accusation that someone form the firm appears to regularly visit this page to make it serve as a PROMO is very likely true.  But deletion is a lousy solution.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:03, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Sources include 184 hits at JSTOR, some among the first 20 (I only scanned the first 20 listings, not any of the articles) with what appeared to be significant discussions of this firm.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:10, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 01:44, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. Choate, Hall is a major player, and they been around awhile (100 years). Article is just a stub but I expect a decent small article could be made onj the subject. Herostratus (talk) 01:38, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * A lot of items have been around for 100 years and still aren't notable. This article has been around since 2009 years and is still ... a stub.  If the subject was notable why doesn't the article reflect it?--Rpclod (talk) 02:02, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I dunno -- why don't you work on it? Instead of sniping at it. The stub is not hurting anyone. The 100 years just means they've had that long to leave a trail of notable events. I'm sure they have. Big white-shoe law firms are important in the business life of a city. Boston is an important city. They've been at it 100 years... hey look at this, found in 10 seconds of searching: Charles Choate was in on the Great Molasses Flood lawsuit. I'm confident there's lots of material here for a good article. Important entity. Keep. Herostratus (talk) 04:55, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * There, I added some stuff from the suggestions above, so now it's not a stub anymore. Herostratus (talk) 05:48, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep per recent article improvements; the notability is still borderline, but I don't see a burning need to delete at this time. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:50, 10 November 2016 (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.