Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Johnathan Seitler QC


 * 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. The Bushranger One ping only 10:25, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Johnathan Seitler QC

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable barrister with a busy, but not especially noteworthy, career. Many citations to cases in which he was involved which do not actually mention him, and many other citations to his own firm's website. Listing at Legal 500 does not, in itself, appear sufficient for notability. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 17:09, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Added duplicate articles Johnathan seitler QC and Jonathan Seitler QC. (Apparently it took the author a few tries to get the spelling of his name correct.)  Note that Jonathan Seitler QC is already the subject of its own AFD.  The closing admin is urged to check the status of that AFD upon closure of this one.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 17:18, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Looks very promotional. I've deleted the version with the small s as a duplicate. The Jonathan S version has an AfD tag - but it seems to lead here... I've tagged Jacqueline1980's user page as promo as well - the same thing over again. I suppose we should be thankful that they haven't listed every case he's been on. I've not seen anything independent that discusses the subject in detail in that list. Peridon (talk) 18:21, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, it does lead here. I've corrected the comment above. I'm not sure what's happened at Jonathan S. Peridon (talk) 18:26, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I included both Johnathan Seitler QC and Jonathan Seitler QC in this AFD. Johnathan seitler QC had already been nominated for its own AFD before I became involved.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 18:38, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The s version only had a CSD on it when I found it. The AfD for it has been closed subsequently. Confusing... My apologies... <8-( Peridon (talk) 18:50, 4 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. Wikipedia is not LinkedIn. The sources do not discuss Seitler himself but rather cases in which he was involved. Pichpich (talk) 16:59, 4 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Strong delete - fails WP:BIO; possible vanity bio. ukexpat (talk) 13:23, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Blatant advertising. I would advise the creator to start by reading the guidelines and then come back and create a completely new article that meets them. Deb (talk) 16:08, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Please can you give us a couple of days to rectify the problem, this was not meant as a promotional page, we are searching for articles.Jacqueline1980 (talk) 14:15, 5 February 2014 (UTC) Please can you give me advice on how to save this article? Will this kind of link help http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/10161872/Judge-must-decide-womans-true-identity-in-14m-court-battle.html I want to save the page Jonathan Seitler QC, the others can be deletedJacqueline1980 (talk) 15:28, 5 February 2014 (UTC) ChatMe!ReadMe!! 16:23, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Moved this comment from the top of the page (where it had been inadvertently placed, overwriting the "REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE" template). In response: the AFD will run its normal course in seven days.  If the article can be improved in that time, it might be kept.  If not, and an improved version can be created later, it can be re-introduced, provided it is not just a duplicate or rehashing of the same article we have today.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:27, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment No, those links will not help, because they only mention Seitler in passing. The case may well be notable, but Seitler's involvement in it is not.  WikiDan61
 * Comment - to be frank, there is nothing to save here. I think you will just have to accept that not every QC is notable enough for an article. For example, I know many QCs at the English bar who are at least as successful as m'learned friend Mr Seitlter, and none of them are notable by Wikipedia's definition. --ukexpat (talk) 14:54, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Question and who is the "us" to which you refer? If you are creating the article on behalf of the subject, please read WP:COI.--ukexpat (talk) 22:02, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:18, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:19, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:19, 5 February 2014 (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.