Deletion of Andrew M. Stroth

Comment: lots of citations of , but a random sampling of the sources reveals only brief mentions, not significant coverage. This doesn't meet the requirements imposed by the notability guideline. Also, the article is written in the format of a resumé, which isn't neutral
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: Google searching and http://news.google.com/archivesearch Google News Archive searching are used to determine whether the person has received significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. That's how Wikipedia determines whether the subject is "notable" or not. That's what is needed for a person to have an article at Wikipedia; passing mentions in an article about somebody else are not enough. See Wikipedia:Notability (people) for an explanation of the criteria. Your citations show that he does indeed represent some notable people, but there is a saying here that "|notability is not inherited"; just being associated with a notable person does not mean that their notability rubs off on you. It's true that the attorneys or representatives of notable people, or attorneys for important legal cases, often get mentioned in news stories, but that does not make the attorneys or representatives notable in themselves. And that's the problem with an article about Mr. Stroth. He represents notable people, but that does not make him notable in himself
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:INHERIT)