Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim Howard (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   keep. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  02:11, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Tim Howard (attorney)

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

Unclear notability, desperately short on references, multiple other issues including spam/BLP. Black Kite 22:15, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete more of a puff piece than an encyclopedic article, delete as non-notable spam. ukexpat (talk) 22:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. The spammy article is filled with wikipuffery and needs a complete rewrite, but the fellow is notable, albeit not necessarily for the reasons he wants to be noted. Gifts Howard gave to Harold Lewis, resulting in a resignation, a federal grand jury investigation, and a fascinating profanity-ridden performance before a Florida State Senate ethics panel. THF (talk) 22:33, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I saw that, but does it actually make him notable per WP:BIO? On the other hand, WP:LUC applies as mentioned below... Black Kite 23:07, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * His work on the tobacco and benzene litigation has kept him marginally in the news. Don't think he quite meets WP:ACADEMIC, but he passes WP:BIO more than, say, Beauty Turner.  THF (talk) 23:18, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep per the notability demonstrated in the refs provided by THF. A nice illustration of WP:LUC.  I'll try and help rewrite it using the sources given.   Ka renjc
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, Needs a rewrite and a COI check, but it shouldn't be deleted.Smallman12q (talk) 00:48, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep in agreement that this article needs a major sandblasting but will then improve Wiki. Never thought I be standing up for a lawyer.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 08:49, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: We're not all bad guys! – ukexpat (talk) 16:01, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.   —THF (talk) 15:40, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.   —David Eppstein (talk) 16:08, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and repair. TJRC (talk) 18:40, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Meets WP:BIO. News coverage indicates notability.--Eric Yurken (talk) 02:45, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Reluctant keep Subject keeps editing the article himself and the current article is a horrible piece of puffery and whitewash. Article needs a complete rewrite (probably best to start from scratch) and then should be watchlisted by several people to prevent subject from reverting all that back to the current unencyclopedic rubbish. --Crusio (talk) 18:12, 19 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.