Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.: Difference between revisions

The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

I don’t think the sources in this article about a law firm comply with WP:NCORP. MelbourneIdentity (talk) 23:19, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and New York. MelbourneIdentity (talk) 23:19, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Two articles portray them as a significant actor in securities class actions, particularly in the so-called “event driven” litigation space. Not a lot of coverage, but a few sentences in each of several paragraphs. There are also paywalled sources which I didn’t check:

• Choi, Stephen, Jessica M Erickson, and Adam C Pritchard. “The Business of Securities Class Action Lawyering.” Indiana law journal (Bloomington) 99.3 (2024): 775–842. available in preprint [here]
• Peter Molk and Frank Partnoy, The Long-Term Effects of Short Selling and Negative Activism, 2002.1 Illinois Law Review 1. available [1] here]

These and other sources were easily found on WP:BEFORE searches, so IMHO they would have been seen if such searches were done and should have been explained here. Oblivy (talk) 03:54, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t know if I would have considered the Partnoy article to be SIGCOV at all, I see 2 sentences and it being included in 3 tables, but I’ll defer to your experience on this. MelbourneIdentity (talk) 02:41, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Need more eyes to determine if we have actual SIGCOV here or just “routine” legal coverage.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, EmilyR34 (talk) 04:24, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires in-depth “independent content” *about* the *company*. This means that “coverage” is assessed, not merely on its existence or the reputation of the publisher, but on the content also. It means that the significance of the source is not merely assessed on the reputation of the publisher or the sensationalism of the headline, but on the content and the depth of coverage. Sources which contain a handful of sentences will not contain the necessary content. Likewise, sources that repackage/regurgitate company information or interviews or quotes, are unlikely to contain sufficient “independent content”. None of the sources here meet the criteria. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:27, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The reliability of the sources is only one element of significant coverage, which also requires in-depth coverage of the organization, which I don’t see a lot here. There’s so much puffery in the article that parsing out the significance is difficult. This reads like a pleading written by a first year associate that wanders around and never quite makes a cogent argument. If it is kept, then I suggest that it be copy edited. Bearian (talk) 12:30, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Passes WP:NCORP. There are many sources to back that up which i listed in source assesment table and shows that this law firm has created a significant impact in their field with dealing cases like Alibaba.com as one of the most notable ones.

Anniesunnie (talk) 09:57, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The problem for me is that the sources in the table are reliable but not really significant coverage, in my eyes. MelbourneIdentity (talk) 05:44, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@MelbourneIdentity I understand. Just take any example like this one https://www.reuters.com/legal/transactional/securities-class-action-against-tyson-flops-want-lead-plaintiff-2022-10-04/ You can see Rosen Legal is discussed indepth which satisfies WP:NCORP. I am not talking about GNG here because that applies to other pages than company. So sources like these surely are significant and are indepth. Some of the content I have listed below from article.

The Rosen Law Firm, which represents the failed lead plaintiff candidates and sought to be named lead counsel for shareholders, did not respond to my query about Cho’s ruling and the law firm’s plans for the case.

Those firms – Rosen in the Tyson case and Pomerantz in the Credit Suisse litigation – argued that defendants have no business meddling in the lead shareholder selection process. In a letter to Cho, opens new tab last October, after moving for the appointment of the two investors with minimal losses, Phillip Kim of the Rosen Law Firm asserted that the plain text of the securities reform act allows only class members – not defendants – to oppose lead plaintiff motions.

Indeed, Tyson managed to block a previous lead plaintiff candidate before defeating the Rosen firm’s most recent proposed lead shareholders. Last year, the Rosen firm moved for a private investment firm, H. Fried Canada Inc, to lead the class action, asserting losses of more than $21,000. Tyson’s defense lawyers dug into the investment firm’s trading records and concluded that the fund’s trades during the class period appeared to have been based on options contracts entered before Tyson’s allegedly misleading statements about COVID preparedness. The investment firm, Freshfields argued at a hearing, opens new tab in August 2021, therefore could not claim to have relied on allegedly fraudulent representations and could not serve as a lead plaintiff.

After that hearing, the Rosen firm withdrew the investment fund’s lead plaintiff motion. Cho gave the law firm several weeks to propose a different candidate. On the last day before time ran out, Rosen moved for the appointment of the two investors asserting losses of less than $325.

Tyson’s lawyers said that Rosen’s failure to propose more convincing candidates was evidence “that this action constitutes precisely the sort of lawyer-driven strike suit that Congress meant to eradicate under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act.”

So much detailed article about Rosen Law firm as per NCORP requirement. Anniesunnie (talk) 13:07, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Per the above source assessment tabl,e it passes WP:NCORP. Reuters litigation analysis repeatedly examines the Rosen Firm’s litigation strategy and procedural failures across several paragraphs, which constitutes WP:CORPDEPTH under WP:SIGCOV. Law360 and Bloomberg Law likewise provide detailed, independent reporting on sanctions, fee disputes, and alleged abusive tactics. These negative and controversial coverage fully count towards notability. Primpzetad (talk) 01:44, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep (Removing !vote, I don’t have the time right now to more thoroughly investigate the sources as requested by user:HighKing, so I am just going to sit this one out if that is ok). per the source assess table. Very good for WP:GNG and other notability guidelines. This stays. Iljhgtn (they/them · talk) 05:32, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• no response from Anniesunnie. Same question to you Primpzetad and Iljhgtn. First, the Reuters link is basically a Google search link and only points to articles where the firm is mentioned – we need specific sources. What we need to see are sources where you can point to specific paragraphs/sections that provide in-depth “independent content” *about* this company – not just reworded/regurgiated/repacked PR and annoucements. Can you help? HighKing⁺⁺ 22:17, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  @Highking, Sorry for the late reply I was stuck somewhere. I will be replying you directly to the CORPDEPTH question.

  If you will see the Tyson Foods Securities Class Action (Oct 4, 2022) article you can see that Rosen Law Firm is not just mentioned as a counsel but it also examines as the driver of the litigation strategies and outcomes across multiple paragraphs not just in a single paragraph.

  Specifically:

  • The article analyzes Rosen’s selection of lead plaintiff candidates, detailing why those candidates failed under judicial scrutiny.

  • It evaluates Rosen’s procedural strategy, including withdrawal of motions, timing decisions, and reliance arguments under the PSLRA.

  • It includes critical third-party commentary (from defendants and the court) characterizing Rosen’s approach as potentially lawyer-driven strike litigation — an evaluative judgment about the firm’s conduct, not neutral case narration.

  This is way above routine case reporting. The Firm’s failures, litigation tactics and decision making are the subject on analysis in many paragraphs which meets [[WP:CORPDEPTH]] in depth coverage.

Rosen Law Firm Sanctioned Over ‘Frivolous’ Investor Suit
https://www.law360.com/articles/2418877/rosen-law-firm-sanctioned-over-frivolous-investor-suit

Anniesunnie (talk) 10:18, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]