Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ted Frank (2nd nomination)


 * 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 keep. If there is an argument for deletion, no prejudice against a speedy re-nomination. Star  Mississippi  14:11, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Ted Frank

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Non-notable lawyer, not meeting Notability article reads like a WP:Advert 666hopedieslast (talk) 23:16, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Law,  and Washington, D.C.. Shellwood (talk) 23:58, 3 July 2022 (UTC)


 * I abstain because I haven't kept up with what WP:N is. Have the notability standards changed? I've been profiled by the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Bloomberg BusinessWeek, Reuters, and a front-page article in USA Today, and many of those have reported on my work or interviewed me in other articles beyond the profiles. I agree the article is poorly written (it leaves out most of my last six years of legal victories, my First Amendment work, the Leif Olson issue, the Stericycle case, the State Street case), but that's the consequence of the weird politics of the article being created years before I was actually notable when people were trying to use my real-life identity to win Wikipedia editing battles with me on trumped-up charges of conflict of interest. (It's not a coincidence that I started doing more notable work when I stopped wasting time trying to edit Wikipedia.) Generally the answer to a poorly written article is WP:SOFIXIT rather than deletion. But maybe we've tightened up notability standards like I argued for a couple of decades ago, so being regularly profiled and quoted and winning court cases doesn't qualify by itself. -- Theodore H. Frank (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 02:16, 6 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment - Is this nomination an accidental error? The article has been vetted by the community and has "good article" status, and lots of sourcing. If there is promotional language that needs to be cleaned up, that can be fixed. AfD is not clean up. WP:NOTCLEANUP. With all due respect to the new editor who nominated this, I suggest the nom is withdrawn. Netherzone (talk) 03:05, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - clearly meets WP:GNG. AfD is not clean up. It has Good Article status and perfectly fine sourcing. Netherzone (talk) 16:40, 11 July 2022 (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.