Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christopher James Mitchell

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 close with no action (default keep). It is impossible to decipher a coherent result from this debate. No prejudice towards renomination or improvement of article. Kurykh 03:50, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Christopher James Mitchell

Christopher James Mitchell (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This man is a fraud - please see http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2320347.stm and http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2590323.stm

Exactly 5 years after being banned from Directorship, he founded this company, and has conned various people into believing him. This page is part of the con, and should therefore be deleted.—Preceding unsigned comment added by DetectiveStan (talk • contribs) — DetectiveStan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Comment Is that the same person? Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 18:52, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment This is a different Christopher Mitchell - the entry on IMDB is obviously not a fraud. Is THIS Christopher Mitchell notable? I suggest not, therefore Delete. Mr pand 18:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Yes it is the same. I have information, and the IMDB is wrong. He has been hiding at the MPC in London for a while now, and was recently found out and thrown out. This is totally wrong to have this page still here. The police are involved in his case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.156.182.57 (talk) 19:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

— 86.156.182.57 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Comment. The BBC articles given here don't mention his filmography. Clearly they have the same nationality, age and name, but...this just seems a bit odd to me. The BBC articles also never mention that the alleged filmography is a scam (by virtue of not mentioning them at all, obviously), so we can't conclude that, although we also don't truly have a reliable source to say he's actually producing anything. So to sum up, we have Chris Mitchell, 28, British con-man; and Chris Mitchell, 28, British movie producer. The former is probably notable (but could be left out of Wikipedia on account of WP:BLP1E), which could be confirmed by a source outside the BBC. The latter is probably notable if what's mentioned on IMDB is true, but we have no reliable sources given to support that. And we have no source given that actually confirms these are the same person. Someguy1221 19:28, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

• I suspect that Christopher James Mitchell did not take time out between finishing Jurassic Park III and starting The Phantom Of The Opera to run a pathetic charity scam; it's also very unusual for court reports not to include the defendant's full name. Hence, unless evidence shows up that both are the same person, I suggest that we keep this article as-is, and ignore the BBC sources. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 20:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Either the nominator is very confused or this is in extreme bad faith. The source given simply does not match up with the information; obviously there is -- shocking, I know -- more than one person with the name "Christopher Mitchell". The ages are wrong, and the BBC guy is a "director" of a company, while our article is about a "director" of moving pictures (and I'm really not sure what would cause someone to be barred from that). I'm not satisfied of the notability of our article subject, all that said. --Dhartung | Talk 20:23, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Tagged nominator as SPA: contribs is otherwise empty. No comment on bad faith per se. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 22:31, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I will get the police involved on this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.171.159 (talk) 23:22, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

— 217.44.171.159 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Comment Someone please deal with this IP for making legal threats. Edward321 04:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment You will find that he is also the 'Director' of the Relevant Picture Company. This is a management role, and if you use the business search engine DnB (which is used by all major firms), the same Christopher James Mitchell is noted under both companies as Principal Director of the board. It is the same person, and these reports are to be believed, as they are undertaken by one of the most important and well trusted anti-money laundering organisations in the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.171.159 (talk) 23:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC) {(spa|217.44.171.159}}
• Comment In any case it doesn't seem as though the article should be deleted. It has as many as two subjects, both with claims to notability. Bobby1011 02:02, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep Reasons given by Detective Stan and the Meatpuppets, if they are correct, indicate addtional notability for this marginally notable person. Edward321 04:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
• DELETE He is obviously a fraud. I have been duped by him. It is alleged that he is a groomer of young people. Please do not make yourselves his accomplices. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.169.54.253 (talk) 16:26, 9 November 2007
  • Comment do not make allegations like that without citing reliable sources. It is also true that on DnB, Children's Celebrations Ltd and Relevant Picture Company Ltd both have the same registered address.This is a confusing case...is the charity fraud mentioned in other newspapers and the like? I'll look into it... Mr_pand 17:53, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 15:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

• Relisting to get a clearer idea of what to do here. It's not clear if there are enough sources about the guy listed by IMDB, or whether we should have an article about the guy in the BBC links or if they are the same person. I point out that we shouldn't delete an article just because we dislike someone... in this case because we think they're a fraudster. Fraudsters can be notable. --W.marsh 15:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. I think it should be closed as a default keep. The reasons given by the nom for deleting actually lend even more notability, and Wikipedia is not censored, so...there you go. Further, we have no sources to say his sources are about the same guy. And finally, if someone wants to AFD the Chris Mitchell we actually have an article on, they can go ahead and start a new one without these silly fraud claims. Someguy1221 20:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

• See Corvus cornix's comment below more or less... the sourcing is still not very good. I didn't feel comfortable closing the AFD yet, considering this is a WP:BLP. --W.marsh 22:45, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: Well, it certainly needs sources, as imdb is not reliable. And the paragraph about the production company sounds as if the production company is notable, but it should have its own article and not be part of this guy's biography. Corvus cornix 22:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I have looked into this and all I can say is that he was an official trustee at St Paul's Cathedral without any reported problems, he did investigate corruption and fraud at the film studios, and yes he did have a production office there. The original poster states that he has set up a new company, well there is no offence (either criminal or civil) the man (whichever) has paid his debt to society, I also found from the official recorders at the Royal Courts of Justice that the defendant's sentence was quashed and later the conviction overturned. So neither Mitchell has done anything wrong.

As for "grooming young men" well if he is gay (again staying impartial) that is not a criminal nor civil offence. and I presume by men, we are talking about male's over the age of 16. In which case it is called dating! not grooming! I think that this AFD section should be deleted as it carries statements by the original poster which in their own right are litigious, defamatory and without any confirmed sources whatsoever. This article also breaks Wikipedia's own ethics (to a living person: we should do no harm) Wikipedia is a encylopedia NOT a tabloid. I agree with other posters who feel that the original poster is doing this in bad faith. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.75.6.54 (talk) 15:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC) — 87.75.6.54 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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.