Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brad Friedman (attorney)


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 22:03, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Brad Friedman (attorney)

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Individual has been in the news, true, but he is not any more noteworthy than thousands of other lawyers Therblig (talk) 16:20, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:15, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Lead counsel in multiple high profile suits, multiple news articles--but they need to be added more completely. . There probably are a few thousand or a few tens of thousands of notable lawyers. It's a very large profession, with about a million lawyers in the US alone. NOT PAPER, remember. DGG (talk) 02:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete There is a lead counsel appointed in every securities class action, by operation of statute (the Prviate Securites Litigation Reform Act of 1995), and many of the cases are "high profile" (i.e., newsworthy) merely because they involve large sums of money. But being apponted lead counsel in a newsworthy class action does not in and of itself mark the attorney so appointed as worthy of an encyclopedic entry.  It is simply not unusual.  It is, in fact, routine.  As the Wikipedia guidelines instruct, just because an individual's name appears in the news associated with a newsworthy event such as a litigation does not mean that the individual is therefore notable.  The Madoff scandal broke in December 2008, and I think not coincidentally, the bio appeared in December 2008.  As originally written the bio tracked nearly word-for-word the lawyer's bio on the firm's website.  It seemed to me, admittedly based merely on circumstance, that the article was created to advertise the firm's representation of Madoff victims.  Dozens of other law firms also represent Madoff victims.  The news media picked up on Friedman in particular in part because the firm he works for was indicted a few years ago. Some criteria for notability in the Wikipedia guidelines include: "The person has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them." "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field."  This lawyer has not recived any significant awards, and has made no contribution that is part of the enduring record in his field.  There is no evidence that has authored anything significant, or that he has argued anything significant, or that he is particulary innovative or talented in his field.  I don't think this lawyer satisfies any of the Wikipedia guidelines for notability.  I therefore recommend deletion.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Therblig (talk • contribs) 20:54, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete The articles given as references aren't about Friedman, they're about Madoff. --GRuban (talk) 08:44, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete There is nothing notable about this attorney as compared to the thousands of others in the same field. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.237.131.98 (talk) 19:43, 27 February 2009 (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.