Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fitch, Even, Tabin & Flannery


 * 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.  Maxim (talk)  14:07, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Fitch, Even, Tabin &amp; Flannery

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Non notable law firm. Being listed on LexisNexis Martindale-Hubbell and "IP Today" does not establish notability. Martindale-Hubbell is basically a business directory while "IP Today" lists no less than 300 specialized law firms. The remaining is self-published, especially the claim that the law firm is the oldest in Chicago. A reliable, independent source offering a substantial depth of (independent) coverage would be necessary to establish notability. Also, serving as counsel in a case law decision "Arrhythmia v. Corazonix" does not establish notability. The case may be notable (although this is not established), this however does not make the firm itself notable. Edcolins 22:07, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep, based on the arguments added below. *Weak Delete Even the article call it a "mid-sized law firm"--conceivably important for early establishment in Chicago, Illinois in 1859, I agree that one case is not sufficient. DGG (talk) 17:47, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions.  -- Gavin Collins 08:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

In law school, I was up for Socratic questioning on this case. I still remember the facts. I think serving successfully as counsel at the Fed Circuit on a case that is in patent law case books (Westlaw) is significant enough to leave the article up. I also agree that this may be notable at least for its Chicago business history connection.

The founding section is weak and should have more citations. I would leave the self-published sources flag up but remove it from the Articles for deletion list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.105.30.99 (talk • contribs) 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Gnangarra 09:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment What if they had a war, and nobody came? Mandsford 02:04, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. Arguably notable as the oldest law firm in Chicago, a very large city with a great many law firms. Unfortunately, the independent sources are few. A search of the Chicago Tribune's online archive finds no mentions of this firm in the last 20 years or so. --Metropolitan90 03:09, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. A 50-attorney, 150-year-old patent law boutique with major reported cases, 100+ news reports I could find, etc.  It's notable and worth knowing about to anyone in the field.  Wikidemo 07:19, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as notability unproven. Article reads like a spammy advertorial. --Gavin Collins 10:13, 19 September 2007 (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.