Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Troutman Sanders


 * 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. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 18:53, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Troutman Sanders

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The company doesn't appear to be notable. In the various more or less promotional versions of the page there ever was only one source that meets WP:SIGCOV, and that's of dubious reliability and independece and even spam blacklisted (www.referenceforbusiness.com/history2/0/Troutman-Sanders-L-L-P.html). My efforts to find something better found a piece of local law news. Beyond that there's some recent news buzz about a sexual harassment case at the firm, but that doesn't cover the company in any detail and is mostly reporting on the allegations which haven't had their day in court yet and adding which would cause BLP issues (e.g. ). That's not enough to write an encyclopedia article about the company. Huon (talk) 10:03, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:13, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:13, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

 {{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
 * Keep. It is highly unlikely that a firm of 650 lawyers would fail notability. bd2412  T 13:04, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: I am finding sources. bd2412  T 14:05, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - the third of those sources is a rehashed press release and doesn't meet the standard of WP:SIGCOV. There's more of that quality, but it doesn't help. The other two I'm skeptical about; they seem to be a summary of interviews with employees about the firm as a workplace. I'm not sure that counts as either a secondary or a reliable source. I'm not sure how we would make use of such sources even if they were generally considered to be reliable. "Troutman Sanders pays below-average salaries but offers free car rides home when lawyers work late"? That's not what I'd expect from an encyclopedia article. Huon (talk) 20:51, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Given that a search for news articles at the Atlanta Constitution - just one potential source - yields over 250 hits, I wouldn't stress about it. As for the other sources, the Vault Guide series is clearly independent and reputable enough to be cited in dozens of Wikipedia articles. bd2412  T 21:22, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. This very old firm (originally founded in 1897) has around 650 attorneys and at least 11 offices around the United States including in Atlanta, Chicago, New York, San Francisco, and Washington, D.C. with annual revenue of over half a billion US Dollars. If we deleted every article w/o sufficient or questionable citations thousands and thousands and thousands of articles and stubs that are useful to readers would be subject to deletion. As pointed out by, just one example of a long existing and credible newspaper & web news outlet produced 250 hits for this firm. As with multitudinous other articles, why not use a tag or tags such as {{More citations needed|, {{Better source|, {{unreliable source?|, {{third-party|, {{importance inline|, {{cleanup-PR|1=article, {{Cleanup|reason=, {{update-section| or whichever is applicable to correct a perceived problem or problems. The firm is a Global 200 (#83), Am Law 200 (#68), NLJ 500 (#74) ranked, as well as Tier 1 ranked in many areas of the law, in 2019 rankings (see, Ranks#1 and Ranks#2). Deleting instead of correcting this article would be unfair to our readers, specially when less extreme measures are warranted. Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 10:00, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. Substantially for the reasons listed above by Q-V, would also be good to improve the article as suggested, and company pages always benefit from vigorous pruning of self-promotional material. But Troutman is comparable to a number of other firms with well-established articles such as, say, Quinn Emanuel, Locke Lord and many more. Shorn again (talk) 16:12, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   18:49, 8 October 2019 (UTC) {{clear}}
 * Keep As per bd2412 above, there are at least two references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. Topic meets GNG and WP:NCORP.  HighKing{{sup| ++ }} 18:40, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:SNOW the article passes our GNG Lightburst (talk) 01:38, 13 October 2019 (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.