Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonathan P. Friedland


 * 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. This is an odd discussion with many IPs and new accounts contributing, but in the end almost nobody (and no experienced editor) is for keeping the article around. It can be draftified on request (though not by me) if somebody wants to work on it.  Sandstein  06:40, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Jonathan P. Friedland

 * – ( View AfD View log )

The subject is a non-notable lawyer/adjunct. There is no substantive coverage of the subject by reliable sources. To what extent there is any coverage, it's off-hand run-of-the-mill coverage (for example, news reporting quoting the subject as the lawyer representing a particular group which is in the news). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:03, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:28, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:28, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:28, 10 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete, fails WP:NBIO. SailingInABathTub (talk) 19:02, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Draftify, per 's assessment that the article has potential. SailingInABathTub (talk) 01:33, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * This page should stay. It cites to reliable independent sources and it meets the notability requirements. With respect to notability, the author wrote about a jurist that is notable enough for at least two people to have written something substantive (more than just a mention) about him that has been published in reliable sources - look at Thomson Reuters, American Bankruptcy Institute, and Bloomberg. I did some Googling and at least one of the treatises speaks to a concept that has never been introduced before, plus all the resources are verifiable. I think Wikipedia would benefit from keeping this page. Hjoug2021 (talk) 20:04, 16 April 2021 (UTC)Usert talk:hjoug2021
 * This editor has only edited the Jonathan P. Friedland page and a page where they added content sourced to Jonathan P. Friedland. I strongly suspect a COI account. "Being cited" is not on its own a sign of notability. Have RS covered the subject in any substantive way? No. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:19, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The sources cited by do not contain WP:SIGCOV of the subject. The Bloomberg article is an interview of the subject about bankruptcy law, the rest are work by the subject. SailingInABathTub (talk) 20:43, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Snooganssnoogans, I created the page and while I cannot speak to Hjoug2021’s edits or motivations, mine is not a COI account and I have certainly written and edited articles unrelated to this one and its subject. That, of course, doesn’t answer the question of whether the subject meets the notability requirements. With respect to that, I agree that this is a borderline question but I think as it reads now it meets the standard. My reasoning is that the influence of his writing is evident, not by the writing itself, but by the fact that is writing has been cited by numerous academic journals (but not the trade publications that Hjoug2021 added and I have consequently deleted reference to them.)  What are your thoughts?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by EditThrough (talk • contribs) 20:07, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Move to draft. Authorship of legal treatises cited by the courts for propositions of law comes close to meeting prong one of WP:AUTHOR, but the sources are not there to support notability. I would provide an opportunity for those sources to be found, as book reviews may exist in less accessible sources such as law reviews. BD2412  T 01:00, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you, BD2412, for your helpful comment. As I started to look, at your suggestion, I was skeptical that I would locate a review of either of the books at issue. The reason is that, in my experience, academic journals are publishing fewer and fewer of them.  See, for example, https://www.chronicle.com/article/the-endangered-scholarly-book-review/ (registration is required to view this but there is no charge to register). I found two reviews nonetheless, of one of the subject’s books (Strategic Alternatives). One, of the first edition, can be found at https://search.proquest.com/openview/121b7b31f10b4613db0e9c0fd5c40384/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=33486. The other, for the second edition, can be found at https://www.abi.org/abi-journal/strategic-alternatives-for-distressed-businesses-second-edition (one can see that the review exists at this URL but the review itself is behind a paywall). Both reviews were published in the ABI Journal, which is published by the American Bankruptcy Institute.  I also respectfully suggest that in the case of legal scholarship, in particular, notability can be (and is, in the case of this subject) demonstrated by things other than book reviews. Specifically, one way to satisfy prong #1 of WP:AUTHOR is where the person “is widely cited by peers or successors.” This same standard exists under prong #1 when considering Creative professionals. In the subject’s case, footnote 3 of my article lists five federal court decisions in which one of his two books were cited; footnote 4 evidences the citation of one of his books in a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court; and footnote 5 leads to Google Scholar, which shows that the Subject’s articles (as opposed to his books) have also been cited more than 100 times by peers, in articles they subsequently wrote and which were published by numerous academic journals. The word “peer” here is interesting because his articles  have been cited by other attorneys, courts, and academics (this is all evidenced by reference to Google Scholar). The very fact that so many of the Subject’s writings have been cited by so many and in so many contexts evidences that he, indeed, meets the notability requirement.EditThrough (talk) 21:52, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jp×g 03:46, 21 April 2021 (UTC) Interesting back-and-forth regarding the subject. Current version no longer reads like a resume, and is a contribution to online bankruptcy legal information. Regarding "notability," a basic dictionary definition of the word is not irrelevant to this discussion: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/notable. A person of note is just so subjective. When doing a quick search on best bankruptcy attorneys in the country, subject readily came up at https://www.premierbankruptcylawyers.com/expert-directory/jonathan-friedland/ which seems to support and even expand on the subject's contributions to bankruptcy law, publications and education through his legal practice and other business. Overall, seems like this should stay.Strbf (talk) 02:15, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually, a "basic dictionary definition" of notability is irrelevant to the discussion, since Wikipedia has its own well-developed policy on what constitutes encyclopedic notability. My earlier evaluation stands. BD2412  T 04:31, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

I do not know if the following is relevant to the decision about whether to include or exclude the page but I do see that the subject has been included in two separate Wikipedia articles about “notable alumni.”

The University of Pennsylvania Carey School of Law’s Wikipedia pages lists him here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Penn_Law_School_alumni#Arts_and_entertainment lists Friedland as a notable alumni’s.

The Wikipedia page for Kirkland & Ellis lists him here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirkland_%26_Ellis

I also see that he is listed here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:American_legal_writers — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1008:b0d1:bc49:3140:ab47:795b:7586 (talk • contribs) Thank you to all contributors for your input to this page. In regard to the "Notability" discussion, the Wikipedia Notability guidelines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Any_biography under "Creative professionals", Authors... Point 1. states the following: "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors." is extremely relevant for Jonathan P. Friedland, his books are annually published by a renowned publisher, let me stress that they are not a one time publication but because there is a public demand for them, each year one of the most reputable names in the publishing industry, Thomson Reuters, invests in publishing Jonathan Friedland's books. Moreover multiple citations have been provided for where they have been referenced in US courts. To further solidify the notability of Friedland, there are numerous academic journals that have cited his other articles. It is rare for a practicing attorney to have his or her work cited like this. I think this in itself makes a strong case for the discussed page to stay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EditThrough (talk • contribs) 20:45, 29 April 2021 (UTC) Is it relevant that the same user choosing to include the subject in the above-referenced notable alumni lists did so after the deletion discussion here commenced, and is now arguing against deletion here, using these alumni list inclusions as a basis for their opinion? Would this fit the Wikipedia vandalism definition? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vandalism_on_Wikipedia Civilitypromoter (talk) 18:19, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * None of the above is relevant to the discussion. Both the addition of subjects to articles listing alumni and the inclusion of the subject in categories are aftereffects of the article having been created. If the article is deleted, those listings will also be removed. BD2412  T 04:33, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Draftify. I'm persuaded by BD2412's comments. At present, notability is not shown, but there's a good chance that it will be given further research. Draftification allows the article to be further developed to meet that requirement without losing the work already put into is. TJRC (talk) 17:15, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Nah. WP:AGF. It's unsurprising that an editor who has put a lot of work into an article feels strongly about its retention, and maybe will reach a bit in their arguments. But that's not vandalism, that's zeal. TJRC (talk) 18:33, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

I don’t have a dog in this hunt but for what it’s worth I think y’all are missing one important point. I’ve been a lawyer since 1973 and I can tell you that lawyers who write articles that are published are the exception. It’s far more rare for a lawyer to author this number of articles. I do not believe that writing a lot of articles or even a couple of books makes the grade, but the key fact here is the number of times this fellow has been cited by academic journals and court decisions. That is unusual and is about the greatest recognition of contribution to the profession a lawyer can earn. Academics almost always cite to other academics and to court decisions. And courts do the same darn thing except it’s even more rare for them to cite to things written by lawyers. Most lawyers go their entire career without a single court or law review citing to anything they wrote. The fact that this fellow has been cited many times speaks for itself: it by definition means he has made significant contributions to the development of American legal jurisprudence. Just saying.

I’m also an attorney, and I’m not sure I agree with the most recent comment. Surely, thousands of attorneys must write articles each and every year.

I agree with the comment from the first lawyer. The point isn’t the writing of the articles, it’s that federal judges are relying on them to make their decisions.

I agree with the comment from the second lawyer. I also think there is a high likelhood of COI entries here supporting the page. I also think the last enry which uses the language "...federal judges are relying on them..." is hyperbole at best.Civilitypromoter (talk) 21:25, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I happen to be a lawyer who has written a book and numerous articles that have been cited by others both in academic writings and in legal documents. I'm quite aware that I'm not "notable". Perhaps this article subject is, but that would hinge on reliable sources covering their importance in this regard. BD2412  T 21:45, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Again, I am the original creator of the page. I respectfully disagree with BD2412's comment that "but that would hinge on reliable sources covering their importance in this regard." I again point out that Wikipedia's Notability guidelines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Any_biography under "Creative professionals", Authors... Point 1. states the following: "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors." My article provides specific evidence that the subject meets this standard in the form of numerous multiple citations to specific legal decisions and academic journals. Be that as it may, the American Bankruptcy Institute, an organization of over 13,000 bankruptcy and insolvency professionals, including attorneys, judges, law professors, accountants, investment bankers, and turnaround specialists (per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Bankruptcy_Institute) published a review of one of the subject's books (at https://s3.amazonaws.com/abi-org-corp/journals/suggested.pdf) which underscored its important contribution. But, again, this misses the point: each time the subject's writings are cited, their importance is implicitly reinforced. And those who do the citing should be deemed reliable, as they include U.S. federal court judges and law reviews published by some of the most respected institutions of higher education in the United States. EditThrough (talk) 02:34, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Less arguing, more improving. The American Bankruptcy Institute Journal book review cited above in this discussion nearly two weeks ago has not even been added to the article. BD2412  T 04:16, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

The article appeared in the ABI Journal. The article is indeed a reprint of what the author wrote in his blog. But that does not change the fact that the article was indeed published by the ABI Journal. The fact that it decided to re-publish the content of a blog is irrelevant. Tim Templeton's comment that the review is from a blog is simply is incorrect. The Strategic Alternatives book itself is not, as Tim Templeton suggests, "a compilation of case law from hundreds of contributors, with Friedland as editor in chief." Friedland is both "Principal Author and Editor in Chief of the book, and it is not merely a compilation of case law. The book analyzes case law and statutory law; it does not merely compile it. Friedland wrote much of himself, edits the book, and (most importantly) and choreographed its design (its design is discussed in the preface of the book, which is copied below). I acknowledge Tim Templeton's comment that the one interview I had included in my endnotes doesn't pass muster because of its source. However, I have now gone back to my article and supplemented it to include a citation to an article originally published by LRP Publications, Inc., in its journal, Bankruptcy Court Decisions Weekly News & Comment Volume 47, Issue 21 Page 4, and which was reprinted https://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/insolvencybankruptcy/47416/kirkland-star-goes-back-to-his-middle-market-roots I believe this publication does satisfy the reliability standard. Also, with respect, I take issue with Tim Templeton's statement that the citations of Friedland's work "are not that plentiful." In addition to the examples of published federal court decisions my article already provides an endnote to the Google Scholar page about Friedland, which lists 118 separate citations to his works in scholarly journals. If it would make my article stronger, I can certainly cite to each of them rather than citing to Google Scholar which, in turn, cites to them.EditThrough (talk) 21:57, 6 May 2021 (UTC) EditThrough
 * Delete - the review mentioned above is from a blog. I hunted and can't find a single piece of biographical info about him in a reliable source, other than his interview in a source that wouldn't meet the reliability threshold even if it wasn't just an interview. The Strategic Alternatives book itself is a compilation of case law from hundreds of contributors, with Friedland as editor in chief. Without any reviews, the book itself wouldn't pass notability for a standalone article. I know it's a reverse WP:OTHERSTUFF, but the citations of his work are not that plentiful (the first one linked doesn't have his name as an author), and none of the other co-authors seem to have their own articles either. Without identifiable biographical coverage, he fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines WP:GNG. TimTempleton (talk)  (cont)  23:56, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Draftify - as per BD2412. MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 08:58, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete If a book review was evidence for notability, then WP becomes a never-ending compendium of authors or editors. Also despite assuming good faith, there is a limit to zeal, such as creating a gingerbread trail of WP entries, and editing others, seemingly for the end result of supporting the subject's purported notability. Civilitypromoter (talk) 04:22, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete -This becoming a farce. Notability should predate such a WP entry, and not need to be constructed as EditThrough seems intent on doing, from the notable alumni list additions to the latest comments above.  And the entry is now again looking like a resume, with today’s additions of the subject’s past law firms.Civilitypromoter (talk) 22:31, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: duplicated !vote of 04:22, 6 May 2021 (UTC), above, stricken. TJRC (talk) 22:57, 6 May 2021 (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.