Deletion of Armstrong Teasdale

Comment: The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations is  and applies a stricter interpretation of requirements than for other topics. In short,  requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with |in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing |"Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include ''original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject''. That means, nothing that relies on company information or announcements or interviews, no echo-chamber stuff, etc. None of the references in the article or in this AfD meet the criteria and having searched I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria. Topic fails 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NCORP||WP:CORPDEPTH||WP:ORGIND||WP:NCORP)

Comment: Perhaps unsurprisingly for a 13-office firm founded 120 years ago, there appears to be a lot of coverage on it. Examples: https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/686460985/ 1; https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/139935591/ 2; https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/141736935/ 3; https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/141220005/ 4. The otability (organizations and companies)#Primary_criteria|notability standards for companies require "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject," which appears to be the case here
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)