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 delete. -- Cirt (talk) 07:04, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Day Pitney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article was nominated for CSD deletion on notability grounds, with an additional citation to the lack of indpendent sources or references (most citations go to their own web-site and PR). However, the article has been around for nearly two years, and although deleted once before on COPYVIO grounds looks enough like it could be slavaged that I think an afd is better suited to determine its fate. I have no opinion on the article's worthiness to remain here, I'm just filing for deletion to help clear out the csd backlog. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:40, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support since they appear notable due to their size, and prestigious alumni, and since it seems to be common practice to create these articles as there are over 60 law firms which are smaller that have their own articles. --AerobicFox (talk) 06:48, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Not in any way notable. No assertion of notability. No independent refs or sources. The fact that there are over 60 smaller law firms merely suggests that 60 more that might be considered here. In any case the size of a company has no bearing on its notability. Wikipedia seems to be rapidly become a directory for certain type of business including law-firms Poor past practice on Wikipedia is no reason for it to continue.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   09:29, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.
• Delete. First couple pages of Google News archive coverage reveals only incidental or routine coverage: mergers with firms, former lawyers with the firm moving on, quotations from lawyers about litigation they're involved in, and so forth. None of this establishes that this firm has any historical, technical, or cultural significance. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:38, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.