Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crowe & Dunlevy


 * 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. With no prejudice against renomination Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:00, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Crowe & Dunlevy

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Aside from having many changes of partnership name, I do not see anything notable here.  DGG ( talk ) 04:25, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep, as approving editor at AfC. Clearly meets WP:GNG.  Plenty of GHits, GNews, GBooks, 45 hits on JSTOR.   GregJackP   Boomer!   04:46, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. Law firm articles can be hard to deal with because there's often a lot of inherent promotional content, and while larger firms get lots of mentions in the press, it's not always obvious how to distinguish "routine" coverage from "substantive" coverage.  In this case, the firm is a bona fide heavyweight in Oklahoma, and (although the current article doesn't mention it) it's had some significant members: federal appeals judge  Jerome Holmes, first black judge on the 10th Circuit, came from there  as did Iran-Contra independent counsel Lawrence Walsh ; the firm also got a lot of mention in connection with its representation of Kerr-McGee in the Karen Silkwood case . I note a problem with the one of the article's references, a piece from the Journal Record (which is often a good source for information on Oklahoma business topics) entitled "189 Attorneys Have Served Crowe & Dunlevy", that is actually linked to an Oklahoman article instead; there's an different article about the firm by the same reporter on Questia  and apparently a bunch of others, but unfortunately my Questia subscription has expired. --Arxiloxos (talk) 05:30, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 9 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:56, 15 December 2013 (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.