Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steptoe & Johnson


 * 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. No new comments in several days so a third relist seems unlikely to be of much use. No prejudice toward a new nomination. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 18:36, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Steptoe & Johnson

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fork of deleted Articles for deletion/Steptoe & Johnson PLLC, written by paid-for editors, the latest of which is working on User:JoeE PPC PubAssist/sandbox (through that editor has disclosed his COI and his draft is not subject to this deletion - I am just noting the general trend). The article has plenty of referenced puffery, but it is the case of Bombardment - very few refs are about the company, and most of those that are mention it in passing. The company has won some niche industry awards, but it is hard to say if they are serious or given to anyone who pays registration fee/etc. and none are notable and defining. The best ref I see is and it is just a short paragraph in a trade journal, and frankly, all it says is that the company is doing ok, but nothing more. It is not the largest or the anything, it is just one of many mid sized legal businesses out there. Nothing encyclopedic here. Fails WP:NCORP as far as I can tell. Just like the previous deleted draft did. Thoughts? (See also WP:CORPSPAM). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 08:24, 29 November 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:42, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.  Nordic   Nightfury  10:49, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  Nordic   Nightfury  10:49, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  Nordic   Nightfury  10:49, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:29, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - Chambers & Partners and Legal 500 both are highly competitive rankings utilized by corporate counsel in making hiring decisions (as legal journalist Dominic Carman explains here), definitely not pay-for-play. Further, the firm and its lawyers are regularly mentioned and quoted in connection with current national and international legal, business and political issues, recently including LGBT representation in the legal profession and digital currencies, among other things. Satisfies WP:NCORP, surely as much as, say, Arent Fox. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spark412 (talk • contribs) 20:48, 14 December 2016 (UTC)  — Spark412 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Delete -- the company may or may not be notable, but the article fails WP:PROMO, which is a fundamental policy. The content opens with:
 * ... an international law firm recognized for advocacy in complex litigation and arbitration, representation of clients before governmental agencies, and guidance in business transactions. The firm has more than 500 lawyers and other professionals in offices in Beijing, Brussels, Chicago, London, Los Angeles, New York, Palo Alto, Phoenix, and Washington, D.C.
 * Wikipedia is not an office directory either. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:07, 15 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete The vast majority of the sources given are either not WP:RS or not independent of the article subject. What remains is mostly passing mentions or quotes from an employee/partner in the firm about some other subject.  The only independent, significant coverage seems to be about the firm deciding to accept Bitcoins for payment of fees, which is a bit WP:1E.  Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:30, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Spark412 has done yeoman work in removing the most objectionably-promotional text and adding citations to WP:RS. These are enough to show me that there is potential for improvement in the article and that the article subject is notable based on coverage.  Coverage of their pro bono activities added to the Bitcoin stories eliminated my previous WP:1E concern.  I am changing my !vote to Keep for these reasons.  I would suggest, however, that the "History" section be more fully cited.  It currently has almost none, and contains the bulk of the encyclopedic information.  Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:43, 21 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment -- I made some edits to address the concerns above. The vast majority of references now are independent, and promotional language has been toned down. As noted in the new intro, the firm is the 93rd highest-grossing firm in the US, per the Am Law 100, the equivalent for law firms of a Fortune 500 ranking. Only two of the top 100 highest grossing are absent from Wikipedia (Sheppard Mullin and Ogletree Deakins). Spark412 (talk) 19:30, 19 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment -- I don't see being "93rd largest law firm" a sufficient claim to notability. The article is still promotional; for example, I just removed this self-cited passage: diff. The lead is still an office directory. Etc. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:56, 20 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment -- I removed the opening office listing, stating just that it's headquartered in Washington, DC. What remains of the article is independently sourced, and I have trouble seeing how it's promotional. It seems to me that if a company's inclusion in the Fortune 500 is intrinsically notable, than so is a law firms' inclusion in the Am Law 100. Certainly very few of the other 97 Am Law 100 entries on Wikipedia have any more than this one to distinguish them. See, e.g., Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom or Crowell & Moring. Spark412 (talk) 14:08, 21 December 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.