Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Mitchell (barrister)

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. Courcelles 23:34, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Mitchell (barrister)[edit]

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

"Just another lawyer" - fails WP:BIO - references are to sources connected with the subject (his legal chambers' website) or to online profiles (eg Chambers and Partners - not to be confused with his legal chambers at http://33knowledge.com) and do not demonstrate notability. ukexpat (talk) 13:57, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or rewrite Just another fairly high ranking lawyer... Probably worthy of an article - but this oozes promotion and is badly referenced from a Wikipedia point of view. Possibly a conflict there between legal and encyclopaedic practice - they prefer 'he said that...' and we prefer 'The Times said that...'. Peridon (talk) 14:33, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Probably written by a junior in his chambers. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:59, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Pretty much a C.V. rather than encyclopedic biography. Not seeing sourcing showing to get this subject over GNG. Carrite (talk) 17:54, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- This feels far more like a CV or ADVERT than a biography. AS a QC, he has appeared in some high level cases, but that hardly makes him notable. If we allow this=, we would have to allow an article on every QC. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:28, 30 March 2013 (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.