The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. HilaryLynn320 (talk · contribs)

This page was proposed for deletion by AusLondonder (talk · contribs) on 17 April 2022 with the comment: No WP:SIGCOV, created by apparent COI editor It was contested by UnitedStatesian (talk · contribs) on 6 July 2022 with the comment: (see WP:Requests for undeletion#Faegre Drinker)

	This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Law Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Flagging that we need a new article and to update this article to reflect the end of Faegre Baker Daniels after its merger with Drinker Biddle & Reath.--Iowalaw2 (talk) 19:24, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest removing the advert tag. Most of the content here was imported from the two legacy firm articles, although I tried to clean it up and make sure it was NPOV as I added it. Since the advert tag went up, I made a few tweaks to remove borderline non-NPOV language. As it is now, the article is mostly "matter of fact" statements about the timeline of significant firm events, the size, geographic reach and practice areas of the firm, and notable third-party recognition. I think this is consistent with other law firm articles and are all relevant to a reader's understanding of what the firm is all about and how others view it. It also includes information that isn't necessarily positive, including about economic troubles at the firms, shootings involving firm attorneys, and reported commentary about the merger. For what it is worth, I am not associated with the firm. Please let me know if there are any objections, or other specific suggestions to address the concern. --MinnLegalEagle (talk) 16:42, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since there have been no objections to my above comment from a month ago, I have gone ahead and removed the advert tag. Before doing so, I have made a number of further edits to eliminate any reasonable view that this encyclopedia article is an advertisement or lacks NPOV. If anyone thinks there are specific issues with this article, feel free to be bold and edit or discuss them here. I don't think the advert tag is appropriate at this point. --MinnLegalEagle (talk) 19:18, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]