Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Snell & Wilmer


 * 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. (non-admin closure) — Mythdon ( talk  •  contribs ) 21:29, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Snell & Wilmer

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Has been tagged for several issues starting in 2016. No evidence of meeting WP:NCORP. Seems primarily intended as promotional. Was previously subject to PROD process, with tag placed by then removed by  without rationale. AusLondonder (talk) 18:05, 18 April 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:20, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 18:26, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 18:26, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:35, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. Does, in fact, appear to meet WP:NCORP: Reuters, LA Times, Washington Post agt x  16:10, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep. It is hard to find coverage due to the large number of minor mentions such as "so and so joined Snell & Wilmer", or its listing in various directories and lists of law firms (which is how I would classify the three "sources" mentioned above). I did fine this, which is also a list of firms but the writeup is reasonably long. There is an article about their philanthropy, and this book which appears to be independent. MB 15:46, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The "Vault" book is entirely based on information provided (mainly by way of survey) by the company and their execs. It has zero "Independent Content", its just regurgitated marketing and PR. Fails WP:ORGIND. The newspaper clipping talks about how/why the firm collects art and their art collection - no in-depth information about the actual *company*, fails CORPDEPTH. But the last reference appears to be good.  HighKing++ 13:35, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep Given the age of the firm and the fact that a renowned historian wrote a book about the firm as well as another about one of their most famous cases, I'd say this firm is notable and meet NCORP.  HighKing++ 13:35, 1 May 2022 (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.