Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Davis Graham & Stubbs


 * 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. Joyous! | Talk 03:08, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Davis Graham &

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing General notability guideline and the more detailed Notability (companies) requirement. I used an earlier version of this article as a screenshot to illustrate the WP:CORPSPAM Signpost Op-Ed I wrote last year. It was deleted, but it has been recreated since by User:Ferma with the edit summary "clearly notable". Well, I don't see it - please explain how this small company doing business as usual passes our notability criteria. Pinging User:Randykitty who added notability tag, and User:Stesmo who was also involved in editing this and noted that most of the content here is trivial (well, of course there is, because there is no in-depth coverage to speak of - company exists, and this is all we can say... WP:NOTYELLOWPAGES). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 08:34, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Coverage is all trivial, no notability apparent. --Randykitty (talk) 09:14, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:08, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:08, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:08, 7 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep Major law firms are significant, and this firm has clearly long been one of the leading law firms in Colorado. A long string of distinguished attorney, including Senator Gary Hart and Supreme Court Justice Byron R. White are alumni of the firm; the pages of these notable people link to this page and it is useful to have this information available, even though the page needs to be improved.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:52, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Notability is inherited, so it doesn't matter who worked or works there. And which part of NCORP states that "major law firms are significant"? Heck, do you even have a source that states it is a major law firm? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 02:22, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete instead as this only has the expected sources and information that comes with this article, none of it substantiating to actual substance and significance and the history and past deletion suggest enough; there's nothing beyond the trivial information listed to suggest better. SwisterTwister   talk  22:36, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Seek and ye shall find. (corollary: those who do not look, do not find.)E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:09, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * It's a good attitude, but when we find poor sources, well, GIGO. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 02:23, 8 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Sources Here  is a 1979 New York Times article about hos the energy boom was causing Davis Graham  to grow very fast, and to compete for the first time for the nation's top law school grads.  Here  Davis Graham is described as " a major Denver law firm".  Here a Nevada newspaper describes Davis Graham as "known for its corporate finance, energy and mining, natural resources and..."   Here  the Washington Post describes the firm as one of Colorado's largest, one of a number of articles about the firm in the Post; several of which cover the firm's Washington office - which ws opened in 1982 .  Having a D.C. office is a sure sign that a law firm is of more than local importance.  I remind editors that the quesiton at AFD is not whether sources presently in article confirm notability, but, rather, do sources exist that confirm notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:09, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The NYT article describes law firms in Denver (not just this one), and mentions it as one of the Denver law firms, but it is not an in-depth coverage, and it opens with "NOT one of Denver's law firms ranks among the top 100 in the country." which suggests this is not a firm of national importance. Nor is there any source that suggests it is a major regional (Colorado) firm. It is just a local company, and according to The Durango Herald (a local Colorado newspaper with a very small circulation) it is a "a major Denver law firm", and yes, the same is said by a much bigger Washington Post, but it is not an in-depth coverage, but a mention in passing. is pretty much business as usual irrelevant trivia mention. Nothing shown suggests the company passes GNG or NCORP - the coverage is passing, and arguing that "it is notable because it has offices in Washington" is grasping at straws, I am afraid. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  02:22, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: "the question at AFD is not whether sources presently in article confirm notability, but, rather, do sources exist that confirm notability". Absolutely. However, this should not be interpreted that those sources do not need to be shown here to exist. Just arguing that it's likely those sources exist doesn't do it. --Randykitty (talk) 07:07, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Indeed. This is covered by the fallacy of WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 08:34, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * In fact, the NYTimes article you dismiss contains solid information on this firm, "When Mr. Hoagland, a graduate of Yale University and the Columbia law school, arrived at Davis, Graham & Stubbs, Byron White (now a United States Supreme Court Justice) was practicing there, but was still definitely small‐townish. No Denver firm had more than 10 lawyers then. Now Davis, Graham & Stubbs and three other firms — Dawson, Nagel, Sherman & Howard; Holland & Hart, and Holme, Roberts & Owen — have 80 to 100 lawyers each." Brief discussions in RS can be assembled into good articles.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:41, 8 November 2016 (UTC)


 * More sources [[U.S. News & World Report] . [[Lex Mundi]] First ‘Best Law Firms’ Analysis Slots Davis Graham & Stubbs as a National Leader .  Martindale-Hubbell  "For the last 90 years, Davis Graham & Stubbs LLP has ranked among the region's most prominent law firms..." .  Comment I hope editors who specialize in law firms will look at this. To me, it appears that we risk losing verified, useful information (about a firm linked from the bio pages of a series of major national figures) if we delete this page on a firm that can be expanded by brief references to it in RS, including the national media that I linked to above, and from information found in a number of biographies.  I do not think it is a stretch to assume that an aritcle on a law firm that has been a leading regional firm for almost a century, and that has had a D.C. office since before Al Gore invented the internet, is likely to have sources that can lead to a better article.  I do think that the sources already in the article and those that I have provided suffice to establish notability.  And also that when a firm's alumni are such a distinguished bunch, lack of notability is unlikely.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:57, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep It seems easy to find more coverage such as ABA Journal. Andrew D. (talk) 13:44, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * This is mention in passing in a single paragraph. What part of WP:NOTYELLOWPAGES is so difficult to understand? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 14:29, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * No, this is not a passing mention in a single paragraph; it is signifcantly more than that. And it's nothing like the Yellow Pages as there are zero "phone numbers, fax numbers and e-mail addresses". Andrew D. (talk) 14:51, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note that I have added some sources to the article. This AFD appears to have been brought and is now being defended in an instance of WP:POINTy. To me, an editor who works frequently at AFD, this AFD appears to be becoming a WP:BOOMERANG,  demonstrating that major regional law firms almost always pass WP:GNG if editors make good-faith efforts to source them.  I suggest that Nom might want to demonstrate good faith by flagging editors who disagree with his position, in addition to known allies on the point he wants to make.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:39, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I am sorry, I don't think we interact often so I can't remember who might, in the past, have had disagreed or support some points in discussions. I pinged some users in the OP as they were part of the article's history. But in the gesture of good faith, I'll invite you to look at my prod at Vicente Sederberg, LLC - can you find better refs? Do you believe we should deprod it and take it to AfD? I certainly am no fan of stealthy deletions. Discussions are good, as long as we are all trying to fix this project. I do however encourage you to read my OP-ED at WP:CORPSPAM, so you can see where I am coming from. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 07:49, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I certainly agree that CORPSPAM is a problem, but I do not agree that deleting articles on notable corporations is the solution - even in the case where a firm monitors it's page and repeatedly whitewashes it/turns it into an advert. in re: Vicente Sederberg, LLC, the firm has certainly found a market niche (promoting legalized marijuana) that garners it a great deal of media coverage.  Far too much coverage to make deletion by PROD appropriate, in my opinion. (My google news search here:   I suggest that you withdraw the PROD.  You might then decide to turn it into a reasonably good article, to leave it tagged for improvement, or to take it to AFD.E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:30, 9 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep -- notability is generally not inherited, but in this case sufficient number of notable people worked there. Per recent article improvements, sources seem OK for GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 16:10, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. the material in the article is so trivial that it makes it likely that nothing better could be found. The awards is for "Top 150 Under 150" list of leading midsized US law firms. Real evidence it was the leading law firm in the country would be notability , and I'd even consider the top 10 or so as presumptive. But top 150, and not just top 150, but top 150 of a subsidiary category?  Other ranks are best in a niche in one particular small state, and references for a few of its attorneys who turned out to be notable for their later careers.  DGG ( talk ) 08:51, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - large, 101-year-old law firm, with notable lawyers, thus passing my standards. FWIW, I have tended to be more inclusionist than as far as law firms are concerned. Bearian (talk) 17:35, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * "deleted ... recreated since"? Let us be very clear about the chronology. The article on this law firm was deleted as an expired PROD on 9 April 2015.  I would have removed the PROD notice if I had seen it, but no matter, the old article was pretty rudimentary anyway, so I wrote a new article, based on the cited sources, less than 24 hours later.  The new article has been sitting there happily for the last 18 months.  This law firm is clearly notable.  As I wrote elsewhere about the same time: "there seems to have been a spate of summary deletions of obviously notable law firms recently, such as Bae, Kim & Lee, Gleiss Lutz [ed: since recreated], and Cuatrecasas [ed: now a disambiguation page].  These are among the largest law firms in South Korea, Germany and Spain, respectively ... I think these deletions are just plain wrong. ...  No doubt there may be unduly promotional material in this sort of article, like any other article about a commercial organisation or product, but that is a reason to improve them and make them more neutral, not a reason to delete them.." Ferma (talk) 00:18, 18 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.