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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) SanAnMan (talk) 13:11, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Norton Rose Fulbright (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:Necrothesp with the following rationale "that's a pretty big law firm". Being "pretty large" is not a criteria for notability, and I don't see anything like required coverage to help it pass it (a few passing mentions, of course, but no in-depth coverage of the firm significance, etc.). As I discussed in my Signpost Op-Ed, this is a good example of Yellow-Pages like company spam. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:28, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. That's a pretty delayed reaction. I deprodded it in February 2015! But I maintain my position that it's pure common sense that a law firm that employs nearly 4,000 lawyers in fifty offices in every continent is worthy of an article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:39, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:39, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per fail of WP:GNG and WP:CORP, specifically WP:ORGSIG: "No company or organization is considered inherently notable...If the individual organization has received no or very little notice from independent sources, then it is not notable simply because other individual organizations of its type are commonly notable or merely because it exists." The lack of independent sources on this fail the criteria. - SanAnMan (talk) 16:04, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep changing vote due to sources being proven. Article can still use a solid rewrite to include said sources. - SanAnMan (talk) 20:14, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:20, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This is now one of the largest law firms in the world and the 2013 merger that created this behemoth was covered in important sources like The New York Times [1], The Wall Street Journal[2][3], The Globe and Mail[4], the Financial Times[5], and many others. Before this article was butchered in some recent edits it contained substantial evidence of the historical notability of the English predecessor firm Norton Rose [6] and the Houston based Fulbright & Jaworski firm has been notable for a century. If there is a problem here it is questionable editing by possibly interested parties, which can be remedied by other means. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:28, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the 3 links provided by Arxiloxos above (the WSJ link is actually the NYTs link, repeated) and what one finds via the news links atop this Afd show more than enough to meet WP:ORG. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:56, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies and thank you for pointing out the erroneous WSJ link, which I've now fixed.--Arxiloxos (talk) 18:11, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, well, now it's even more of a slam-dunk keep. Not sure how, with so much coverage readily available online, how we have colleagues here claiming that "no or very little notice from independent sources" applies. Odd. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:21, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep As noted above, this company has been covered in major publications, such as the NY Times and Wall Street Journal. THis is an established and notable law firm and I see no reason for deletion. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:15, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdrawing nomination. Through one of the sources is a blog, they are all pretty reliable, and the coverage is satisfactory. If the deprod pointed to one of those sources rather than arguing "keep because it is big", we wouldn't be here. Thanks to User:Arxiloxos for the good finds. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:57, 2 June 2016 (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.