Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cornerstone Barristers


 * 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.  Swarm   X 05:13, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Cornerstone Barristers

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Contested prod. Nothing on Google News, and Google only returns primary sources and press releases. Delete.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 19:24, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete See below - I cannot find anything which would suggest notability. As far as I can tell, they are a run-of-the-mill legal firm, without need for a Wikipedia entry. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 20:47, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - I couldn't find any reliable third-party sources. The references in the article seem to be just directory listings, and the book in the "further reading" section was written by a long-standing member of the organization. There's not enough here to pass WP:ORG, in my opinion. —  Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 22:10, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * most of the news is reported on the official gov website bailii.org under the barristers name, not the name of chambers.
 * added some of the notable cases with links to gov websites - Supreme Court, Court of Appeal etc
 * This is one of the oldest sets in London, with many judges, law lords and QC's as members working on some of the highest profile cases eg Bloody Sunday — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.99.173.211 (talk) 10:13, 14 February 2012
 * Hello there, and thanks for adding the material to the article. Unfortunately, I think you may be under a misapprehension as to the nature of Wikipedia's notability guidelines for organizations. The things you mention here - notable cases, age of the organisation, respected barristers - are all reasons that writers outside Wikipedia might write about Cornerstone, but I'm afraid Wikipedia is relatively impervious to such factors. Instead, what you really need to show is that the organisation has been written about in multiple reliable sources that are independent of Cornerstone Barristers themselves. Think newspaper articles, books, and articles in academic journals for the kind of material you should be looking for. If you want to see the detailed guidelines, you can find them here. All the best —  Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 11:18, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your direction. I have added a few third party publications all referencing barristers at chambers.  There are many many more and I am happy to add them if this is the right content.  Barristers here contribute greatly to UK law and it is important work, so I would like that represented, if it fits. Thanks for you feedback.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.99.173.211 (talk) 14:42, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:57, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisting comment. Relisting so that the sources added by 195.99.173.211 might be considered. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:58, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment. I've had a look through the sources that the IP added. A good number of them were primary sources, either from Cornerstone themselves or from legal documents. Of the secondary sources that were included, none of them seem to discuss the actual Cornerstone organization. Rather, they discuss cases that Cornerstone has been involved with or barristers who are Cornerstone members. This is not good enough to prove notability on Wikipedia, in my opinion, because notability is not inherited. I think that rather than having a stand-alone article about Cornerstone, it may be more appropriate to mention them in the biographies of Cornerstone barristers that already have a Wikipedia article. —  Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 05:25, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

If this record is allowed then I will add more case references for barristers practicing ar Cornerstone Barristers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.99.173.211 (talk) 15:02, 21 February 2012 (UTC) 
 * Response to aboveThe nature of barrister's chambers is that they are a collection of self employed advocates that practice under an umbrella organsiation. I can certainly see that each person could have their own record and each person would have enough cases (secondary sources) of merit to warrant inclusion.  I looked at what other organisations had done and endeavoured to replicate.
 * Other barrister's chambers on Wikipedia
 * Matrix Chambers
 * Blackstone Chambers
 * Doughty Street Chambers
 * Garden Court Chambers
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 23:49, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment I have added more secondary sources; publications, news stories and cases. What do you/we have to do to complete this process? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.99.173.211 (talk • contribs)
 * Keep It's not to the chambers' credit that the geolocate on the ip above identifies from the chambers of one of the barristers at Cornerstone (and a QC, at that). However, I'm somewhat sympathetic, seeing this association has extreme durability (since 1860's, that's not run-of-the-mill). Based on the flash quotes on the chambers' website (usually from directory "Chambers and Partners"), I suspect IRS could be found. I'm seeing this, which is from C&P and lauds the firm. This press release demonstrates the search problem: the association has just been rebranded as Cornerstone in December 2011. This blocked link seems to corroborate the assertion of the chambers' seniority and high regard. Here's a news article from 2006 which meets IRS and asserts chambers' notability under the old brand, which happens to be the address ("2-3 Gray's Inn Square"). Here's another. Based on this search, I'm satisfied about NOTE and V. The page needs serious cleanup. BusterD (talk) 15:31, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I have a question. I had actually seen those sources from The Lawyer before, when I searched for sources under the old name after the second relisting. However, I didn't give them much weight as it looks like The Lawyer is a trade magazine, and it has been my understanding that articles in trade magazines are only limited proof of notability. (From WP:CORPDEPTH: "attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, national, or international source is necessary.") Would you characterize The Lawyer as a more important source than other trade magazines, or are you basing your "keep" recommendation more on Cornerstone's general reputation? Best —  Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 02:26, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Changing to keep - BusterD's sources seem to establish notability. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 18:59, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - large number of QCs for the size of the firm. Bearian (talk) 21:31, 12 March 2012 (UTC)


 * 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.