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. WjBscribe 23:28, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Frank[edit]

Ted Frank (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Not a notable person Tbeatty 02:33, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This person fails all the inclusion tests for notability of people. He is not the subject of substantial coverage. He is not widely recognized. He has not been the subject of a credible biography, etc ,etc. His inlcusion in Wikipedia appears solely related to his Wikipedia presence. He was targeted by MichaelMoore dot com for his edits on Wikipedia and his biographical details have been increased but nothing that substantiates notability. He is a lawyer. One of millions it seems. He has not achieved any notable awards that would warrant a biography on Wikipedia. --Tbeatty 02:33, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

§ 1[edit]

• Delete as nominator. --Tbeatty 02:33, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this seems to have been created as a result of the Wikipedia mm.com debate, which really isn't enough for this to be an article. ATren 03:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: You *do* realise that the article was created two years ago, correct? Not related to the Michael Moore stuff at all. Risker 06:07, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, I do, but until yesterday it was deleted - it had been speedied a while back and was only recreated in response to the Michael Moore/THF firestorm. I'm not assuming bad faith in any way, I just felt that the article had been uncontroversially deleted before this whole thing started, so it probably should stay deleted. That's all. ATren 08:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and speedily close nomination. Speedy deletion is only appropriate when an article does not claim the notability of the subject. The article as originally written claimed he was a "prominent" attorney; as nominated that word had been removed but there were links to comments and pieces by (but not about) him in major publications. I have re-added a statement that he is a "leading" advocate of tort reform, a comment that appears regularly in 3rd party sources throughout the 10,000+ web pages that mention his name. If deletion is at all appropriate it would be under the AFD process. However, I believe that too [deletion] is unwarranted because the individual is clearly notable. I accept that the nomination is in good faith but if I may ask, please do not make assumptions about my motivations for writing the article (WP:AGF). I have no ax to grind and have not taken part in any of the Michael Moore Wikipedia debates other than to admonish all sides to take a deep breath. Although the Wikipedia debate alerted me to the issue, I wrote the article after conducting numerous web searches briefly reviewing who he is. Tort reform is a significant political issue in the United States, his organization is one of its major proponents, and he is a fellow and one of the leaders of the organization. He writes prolifically and his name is often in the news. Like it or not, a political activist can boost himself to prominence and notability by writing a lot, taking part extensively in the public debate in America, and catching people's attention. He seems to have done so. A comprehensive, encyclopedic coverage of the state of the tort reform in the United States should include information about this individual. Wikidemo 03:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC) [note - I struck some comments relating to speedy deletion because, despite the initial speedy deletion request and tags, we are now back in AFD][reply]
  • This isn't a speedy delete request, it is a normal AfD. The claim you added is from the law blog hosted by Wall Street Journal (a notable blog, but a blog nonetheless). Nor have I taken part in the MM discussions. I merely note the buzz on this article has been created by that link. That's a simple fact. That appears to be his main claim to notability here and it simply isn't enough. We don't regularly create biographies with such a low level of notability. For example, the author of the blog entry doesn't have a bio here, neither does Frank's counterpoint, John Fabian Witt who penned the op-ed that Frank responded to. Nor does the head of the ATLA, Jon Haber. Please don't see that as a call to create these bio's as that would be a WP:POINT violation. Of the three people who commented or wrote about this in the WSJ article, Frank is the least notable and the only one with a bio and it was substantially created after MM link on his home page criticizing Frank, not as a lawyer, but as a wikipedian. --Tbeatty 03:56, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • You know what they say about 'Foo'. That there are no articles on Witt or Haber have no force on Ted Franks article. Being on MM's page gives him notability the others dont have too.. •smedleyΔbutler• 04:31, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, I'd say Michael Moore's criticism wasn't only directly "as a wikipedian". But rather (and I had better phrase this very carefully if I don't want to spend the whole weekend arguing over it) that Ted Frank's prominence as a policy lawyer/professional ideologue made his editing noteworthy for examination of issues of conflict of interest. After all, having an absolute nobody edit the articles would hardly be worth a personal mention. -- Seth Finkelstein 04:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree with you that his association with AEI opens his edits for scrutiny for COI. Just as any edits by an AEI employee (or any organization) should be scrutinized. That is not an assertion of notability, however. It seems that Ted Franks prominence as a Wikipedian is what attracted Moore's ire, not his prominence as professional. --Tbeatty 04:53, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • The Michael Moore website item described Ted Frank this way: "Frank Defended Merck in Cases Concerning Vioxx The American Enterprise Institute is a Right Wing think tank" (I know an objection has been raised to that "Defended" wording, but even if a mischaracterization, the point here is that it's a reference to his legal work). He wasn't described in terms of "prominence as a Wikipedian". And indeed, he isn't "prominent" as a Wikipedian (though if things continue on the way they have he may soon be notorious as one - joke!) -- Seth Finkelstein 05:13, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • The objection raised by Moore is that he edited the wikipedia article Sicko 96 times. Heck if I just go by word count, it's lawyer = 7 vs. Wikiepida editor = 50.. But I'll grant that neither claim stands on it's own. He's a lawyer that edited the Wikipedia article 'Sicko'. He is still not notable even if Michael Moore doesn't like him. --Tbeatty 05:24, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Let's get real here, folks. In any other context there would be no question as to notability. He's a nationally prominent pundit. It is silly and strains credulity to claim otherwise. The only reason this is an issue is the flap over Michael Moore. If we removed that issue, his notability is not open to serious question. The guidelines list various nonexclusive factors and caution that none are necessary or sufficient; we are to consider the person's prominence. Specifically, is he worthy of note? The guy is relevant. He articulates the agenda for tort reform. He is all over the websites, print pages, and airwaves, and his high-powered little institution has the attention not only of the press and the people but our national government. As a media personality he makes press but the press does not write about his life because mainstream media does not cover itself. However, as an author and commentator he is clearly prolific and widely read. Look at his peers among the +/- 90 AEI fellows. Going through the list alphabetically there's Michael Barone (pundit), Roger Bate, John R. Bolton, Lynne V. Cheney, Christopher DeMuth, Thomas Donnelly, Mark Falcoff, David Frum, David Gelernter, Reuel Marc Gerecht, James K. Glassman, Jack Goldsmith, Michael Greve. I lose steam after G but skimming the rest I see Fred Thompson, Newt Gingrich, John Yoo, Allan Meltzer, Paul Wolfowitz and Robert Novak. To say that half of this band is notable and the other half is not, strikes me as saying that two Beatles are worth articles and the other two are not. They are all making the music and the audience is listening. Wikidemo 08:16, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• A) they are not the beatles and I've illustrated the others that are not notable and he falls in that category including the two other people in his specific group at AEI and B) the other context was Friday when his bio stub had sat unedited and unnoticed for 2 years. Why now would it be different? Others have tried to justify the trolling by MichaelMoore as the reason for notability. Hard to believe we would support that. --Tbeatty 02:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep because there is absolutely no question that a person of this prominence ought to be in any serious encyclopedia that includes current biographies. That this was even nominated for deletion is making me laugh. --Dude Manchap 03:27, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete - Does not appear to quite meet WP:BIO, either generally or under "creative professionals". I'm also not comfortable with the circumstances of the page's creation. - Crockspot 03:37, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete Being a "Fellow" of AEI isn't exactly a high honor. The title is made for the media, and does not mean that they give him a office and a secretary. Being part of an organization that is notable is worth something, but I don't think this guy inherits notability as a result. The country is crawling with self-important "activists", but few are notable in the eyes of Wikipedia. MarkinBoston 03:50, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There are sources, but none of the ones that are truly notable or reliable seem to actually be about him. Being a member of a notable organization does not mean notability, if it did every Wikipedian would get their own page-- which also leads me Crockspot's point that the page was probably not created with good intentions. --lucid 04:01, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gee, thanks for telling me I'm acting in bad faith. Any comment that presumes bad faith should not be considered in this discussion. Wikidemo 08:16, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • And you're assuming bad faith yourself. I'd also advise you to not suggest that other people's opinions be discounted because you don't like them. --lucid 18:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep He's not super-famous, but he's "director of the American Enterprise Institute Liability Project", and at a high enough pundit level to have e.g. a Washington Post Op-Ed. Seems to be well-known in his field of legal policy. He was also a certified Usenet Net Legend, and that ought to count for something. -- Seth Finkelstein 04:15, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

However, Frank made it clear to me that he doesn't want to be associated with those actions, if I understand his comments on my Talk page correctly. If I am correct, then that cannot be mentioned per WP:BLP -- & there is one less reason to keep this article. A pity, since that would keep at least one Usenet-related article from becoming a Featured Article. -- llywrch 07:09, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your comment. Is BLP now being interpreted to mean that an article subject is entitled to pick and choose which parts of his or her life can be covered? Can Larry Craig assert that he doesn't want to be associated with his actions in the Minnesota bathroom, with the result that even a truthful account of the incident must be expunged from his article? JamesMLane t c 13:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My objection to Llywrch was that he mischaracterized historical facts and was reopening a stale thread (something he does again here, but let's not derail the discussion). If the article is kept, I have no objection to truthful accurately-characterized reliably-sourced BLP-compliant NPOV-compliant WEIGHT-compliant materials being included if they are found notable. That would imply that information from books like Internet Culture and magazines like Wired are acceptable; Usenet posts and the Brandeis Justice school newspaper and ravings from tax-protestor and self-published websites are not. Ted Frank 14:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I won't derail the discussion by expressing my disagreement with you about school newspapers.  :) JamesMLane t c 20:54, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep and strong speedy closing He is by far notable enough for an article and this vote is an out of process and IMO for bad faith reasons. •smedleyΔbutler• 04:24, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is out of process and what is bad faith? --Tbeatty 04:27, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thats just my opinion not an attack. You are free to disagree of course. •smedleyΔbutler• 05:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I didn't say it was an attack. I want to know how this is 'out of process' and how it is 'bad faith'. You didn't support these claims and they are not obvious so I am curious as to how you came to this conclusion. I can't really disagree until I know how you arrived at your conclusion. --Tbeatty 06:17, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Asserting bad faith in this situation is an ad hominem attack. Please keep your comments to the matter at hand. Repeated assertions of notablility do not support themselves. MarkinBoston 04:42, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. This is going to be an emotional discussion -- if you've been reading WP:AN/I for the last few days that shouldn't be a surprise. So I recommend to any Admin considering closing this AfD discussion to let it run the complete period -- otherwise it'll be sent to DRV, bounced back here & repeated. (See Sisyphus.) Not to say that this won't happen in any case, but I suspect it definitely will if someone tries to cut corners here. -- llywrch 05:15, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, the sources clearly establish notability. Everyking 08:03, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This man is notable. Ignore the stuff he's been doing onwiki and look at the article. I do not believe that Wikidemo did anything in bad faith, I believe she looked up a public figure, noted he didn't have an article, and created one. Isn't that what Wikipedia is SUPPOSED to be about? WHy do we keep getting caught up in the ceaseless circle of someoneone does something, we get all angsty about and try to cripple our own work for the sake of drama? Come on people, even if you yourself would rather fight than write, at least don't stop other people from doing so. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 08:37, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete. The subject of the article is not so notable that we need an article on him in order to keep credibility as an encyclopaedia. The subject clearly does not want this article (which is attracting editors who have a personal dispute with him). And, as Jimbo says, Wikipedia is not here to make people sad. ElinorD (talk) 09:10, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm? My understanding was that he deliberately took no position on the article's existence. -- Seth Finkelstein 10:30, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Referenced and notable. AR Argon 09:36, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The references to his views—which he's supposedly known for—are not about his views at all, but rather about other subjects where he's been quoted, apparently because he works for a conservative think tank. This is all trivial coverage. Also, I'm certain that neither the creator nor the nominator acted in bad faith. Cool Hand Luke 12:37, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Are you saying the section should be deleted? I would tend to agree but we don't need to go through AFD for that. As some have commented (and is mentioned in the article) he has taken on many issues, probably many dozens, from medical malpractice to asbestos, so listing four in the section (Virginia Tech, Michael Moore, home foreclosures, and criticism of Wikipedia) is somewhat arbitrary, does not represent his more serious work, and may run into WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE issues. If that is a problem, why not simply delete or fix the section? It's a moving target, though. The article is being heavily edited, perhaps faster than we can keep up with in an AFD discussion Wikidemo 13:15, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, I think the section should be deleted, but that the whole article should be deleted because that's his principle claim for notability. As noted above, none of these articles are actually about Ted Frank or his views, so nothing establishes that his views are notable. I would change my vote if a source genuinely profiled him for being influential or notable on at least one subject. Then his work on that subject would merit inclusion in the article, and the article could have a place here. Cool Hand Luke 13:32, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm surprised Cool Hand Luke votes delete, since here he writes, "I tend to be a deletionist, but I think this article will probably survive AfD if challenged." --David Shankbone 14:59, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• What's surprising about this? I think many things should be deleted which are instead kept. Do you not understand what a deletionist is? Cool Hand Luke 15:01, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, I was leaning to delete because I didn't think he's notable, however Wikidemo's arguments have swung me.--Toffile 13:29, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Mentions in reliable secondary sources are in passing, in articles where he is not the subject. Frank is not sufficiently notable, and the depth of coverage is not enough to support a biography. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:31, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article only been in existence for 18 hours! Give us a bloody chance, mate. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 15:28, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep He is clearly notable. If I had an opinion about any of the same topics, none of the major news outlets that turn to Ted Frank would care. The article is well-sourced.--David Shankbone 14:54, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:BIO.  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 15:02, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable, not enough reliable sources. --Chuck Sirloin 15:37, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A current lack of reliable sources only means we have not found them yet and in any acse is not a reason for deletion. Please have patience, this article has only been in existence for 18 hours! Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:13, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's been in existence for two years with no sources because they don't exist and he's not notable. --Tbeatty 19:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is clearly utterly untrue if you read the current article, and not the two years old stub! Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:06, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, no. Look at the logs. This page was created fresh again yesterday, and some of the ancient speedy-deleted edits were restored. Cool Hand Luke 05:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Non-notable. Most of the things he has been doing are only to be expected of someone in his job, which is in itself not a reason for notability (in that case we would have to include about every project leader in thinks tanks, institutes and every university professor in academia worldwide because these tasks fit their work profile as well). Probably most notability of this person is derived from him being an active Wiki editor. Arnoutf 16:52, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidently not, given that his editing of Wikipedia is nowhere mentioned in the article and Wikipedians do not get chosen at random to be pundits on the BBC. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:21, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• What is especially funny about the "not notable for doing something expected of his job" is it would make almost everyone unnotable. "Celine Dion is not notable for singing, which is expected of her." "Floyd Abrams is not notable for being an attorney, since it is expected of him." etc. --David Shankbone 17:35, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• That is a non-argument; among the thousands or even millions of singers Celine Dion is notable (ie more than average professional singer), among the thousands of think tank members (who all publish and are all interviewed) this guy seems pretty average; hence not notable. Arnoutf 13:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep. A no brainer. Certainly more notable than, say, Katherine Prudhomme. He's written for the biggest papers in the US and appeared as a pundit on the biggest networks in the US. A network pundit is clearly a notable public figure. A ridiculous overreaction to the MM website issue. Should be a speedy keep. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 17:09, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Katherine Prudhomme is not notable enough for an article. The overreaction was the re-creation of the article over the MM website issue. --Tbeatty 04:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I think it's getting pretty obvious people aren't voicing the real reasons for their deletion votes. Not enough reliable sources? How do we know that, and when on earth did that become a criteria for deletion? This article has hardly existed for TWENTY FOUR HOURS, and already people are claiming the depth of coverage is not satisfactory. We have articles on Wikipedia that are one sentence long, but a page long article with 16 references can't be allowed to develop and improve for even a day? No wonder new users get discouraged on wiki. Unless they start articles fully formed and perfect in every detail they risk getting their work destroyed within hours. Give this article a few months, at least, and we'll see how it goes - isn't that the wiki way? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:14, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as per Dev920's comment above Ossified 20:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Clearly notable by citations, regardless of on-Wiki activities. Italia^vivi 17:31, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't feel like commenting specifically on whether this article should be deleted or kept. AfD, in my opinion, regularly reaches poor conclusions with regards to Wikipedia-related subjects. But I would like to point out that there is not very much non-trivial press coverage of the man. There is enough to make an regarding his biography (professionals often distribute biographical information) and make a few quotes (but without any reference suggesting why they are important). That said, if it is decided that this article is to be kept because the man is indeed notable, if only slightly, then another point ought to be raised. Should the article be deleted on WP:BLP grounds? I don't know, and do not feel like becoming embroiled in a debate, but this option should also be considered. --Iamunknown 17:34, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:BIO, and I'm wary of the circumstances surrounding this page's creation. Pablo Talk | Contributions 18:33, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So because a notable person acquired an article because someone (who had nothing to do with the dispute in question, and remains a neutral party on it) noticed he didn't have one during a spat he was having here, we must necessarily delete it? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:49, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say that, straw man. Pablo Talk | Contributions 03:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What you said, ceramic dude, is that an article may not exist if it has the misfortune to be born in the fires of wikidrama - which is just so much straw, wouldn't you say? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 07:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I said I was wary of the circumstances of the article's creation. I didn't say that the article should be deleted solely because of that. My main concern is the failure of WP:BIO. I consider this conversation finished. Pablo Talk | Contributions 07:51, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I have already expressed concern about the eagerness to delete an article not a day after its creation, when it is still in its fledging stage, but I additionally ask that people hold off due to the fact that Ted Frank is changing job on September 5. He seems to imply it's quite an important one complete with press coverage, and if so, it is possible some of the people voting delete on grounds of non-notability may regret their vote later on. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:49, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dev, there's nothing at that link about a new job -- just some posts about Wikipedia & Wikiality. Although a bit of poking around on that site did uncover a link to this article where Frank is called a "conservative legal celebrity", which argues somewhat for notability. -- llywrch 19:19, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"The really fun part is going to come after they delete the article, and then the press coverage comes out with the announcement of the new job September 5" is what I was referring to in that post. Also, Abovethelaw.com appears to be the legal version of dlisted, so we can't use it. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:37, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. AbovetheLaw. Well-known blog. Not an RS. Cool Hand Luke 05:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per Elinor. If the subject wanted the article it would just about pass notability but as it appears subject doesnt want article and he is on the borderline of notability then I say delete, SqueakBox 19:09, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He has said no such thing. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:37, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! Elinor did, above which is why I said based on Elinor. If someone can clarify that he does want the article I'll change my vote but if no-one can I'll give Elinor the benefit of the doubt, SqueakBox 19:46, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• (multiple e/c) SqueakBox, as far as I know, Mr. Frank has not commented on whether he wants or does not want this article. See User talk:THF#I'm watching it, where he says, "...if I say I want it [this article] to survive the AFD, people will claim I'm self-promoting, and if I say I want it to flunk the AFD, people will claim I'm trying to "cover it up." So unfortunately, the only answer I can give is that I want Wikipedia policies to be applied as they would be applied to any other BLP, and that I'm going to abstain from the discussion." Kind of dismal, but that is probably what would happen—our community is so messed up. :\ --Iamunknown 19:47, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well thanks for that. Based on what you say and my little knowledge of the user and the case I am going to stay with my delete vote. I am not American but it does seem like he is on the borderline of notability and I think we should be very conservative in enforcing BLP (ie give delete more of a chance than keep though if he had said keep I would have changed my vote, SqueakBox 19:52, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wrote a comment, pressed "save", checked my emails, and then returned to find my post hadn't taken because of an edit conflict with THF. My comment was as follows: "He has not directly said that he wants it to be deleted, but it is certainly the impression that I have picked up. If I'm mistaken, he's welcome to email me." Given the confusing comment below, and the fact that after he had complained at the addition of the notable wikipedian template, and people had edit warred over it, he had finally undone the commenting out himself, saying that he has nothing to hid, I really do not know what he wants. I maintain that he is not notable enough to mandate inclusion. I feel that it must be galling to have people he's in dispute with turning up to edit the article. I feel that there are people on both sides of the issue of respecting or not respecting his privacy who are behaving rather poorly. I have nothing else to say. ElinorD (talk) 20:03, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is my impression that THF is being deliberately non-committal and ambiguous, for the reasons he states: he feels that whatever he says will be twisted and used against him. It is also my guess that, after a good night's sleep (and, perhaps, a funny movie :-)) he decided to reconsider his attempts at regaining some level of anonymity. No doubt the edit warring on the "notable Wikipedian" template contributed to his decision. Note: I don't speak directly for THF, this is just what I have surmised from his comments on the matter (particularly, here). ATren 20:38, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• His wishes play no part in this. He is a public figure, not by accident of circumstance or for some shameful act but because he is a prolific pundit and advocate who seeks the spotlight. The biographical material from which we and others source the information are there at his direction. As a conservative who does not shy away from a fight, he has all kinds of bad things said about him all over the Internet. But not here. The article is not derogatory at all and should not be, as is our policy. The problem here has been the bickering, not the neutrality of the article. A neutral article does not, in Jimbo's language, make anyone said. Any person at that level of prominence should be pleased to have a fair, neutral article about them on Wikipedia, and if they are not pleased it can only be a matter of spin control, not unfair portrayal. BLP is to avoid defaming someone, not to bow to spin control. Wikidemo 21:04, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Disregarding my beliefs we should not have articles about editors, the sources seem to say he is in fact notable. While we can argue those are normal items for a person in his position, the sources covering those issues give it prominence. If a secret service agent was featured in the news for saving the presidents life, you would not say: "he is not notable, its just his job." --SevenOfDiamonds 19:42, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

§ 2[edit]

• Abstain. I said I wasn't going to participate in this, but people keep asking my opinion, so I'm here to make a statement. The reality is that I cannot express an opinion because it will be spun against me either way: if I say the article should be kept, I will be accused of self-promotion, and if I say the article should be deleted, I will be accused of seeking some sort of cover up. I am certainly amused by the number of !votes that are plainly based on the assumption that I want the article deleted, and seriously considered casting a !vote for keep just to see how many people on both sides changed their mind. (So maybe I do want the article kept? Or am I just saying that to encourage delete votes?) I hope I have now sufficiently sown enough confusion about my hidden desires that editors will now be forced to make their decisions and discuss their reasoning on the basis of WP:BIO and other Wikipedia policies rather than lobbying for or against what I want. User:TedFrank 19:54, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  My own comment is based on how important I think the subject's views are when they are subject to an article here or information about them is contained within an article, I think that is at the heart of our BLP policies, and given THF's not endorsing keep I wont be changing my vote, SqueakBox 19:57, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• THF, meet AGF. AGF, meet THF. People's votes here are based on whether they think your real-world handle is notable or not, not on what they think about what you might think about what they may think about what you – or your real world handle – might want. Those who object to the way such dizzying COI games are infecting Wikipedia, I daresay, are probably not joining you in playing them.--G-Dett 02:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't really think you can speak for what "people votes ... are based on". In any case it wasn't about the merits of Keep or Delete so I moved them to discussion page. --Tbeatty 08:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep. I am somewhat puzzled by the existence of this AfD, and some of the "delete" votes and comments. I tend to have a resaonably high bar for notability, but this person clearly meets WP:BIO without much serious argument, both from the article and its sources, and from a cursory examination of media mentions and authorship of widely-read material. While I assume good faith in the nomination, I suspect that a lot of the deletion arguments are based on Wikipedia politics, and that has no place here at all. --MCB 21:16, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep - A national newspaper and network pundit not notable? There is no reason for an AfD here. --Sodium N4 21:27, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Subject appears notable. --ElKevbo 21:41, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - obviously Frank's recorded viewpoints is a bit thin on the ground at the moment because none of the contributing editors really know what's significant to add when it comes of legalese. I'm trying to get WP:LAW involved and any other editors I think would be good at this so we can get some nice content up soon. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:36, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as clearly WP:BIO notable. I am puzzled as is MCB. --Dhartung | Talk 22:38, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as obviously notable, like him or not. I'll work on this article this week. Bearian 22:41, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

§ 3[edit]

• Keep. "Not the subject of substantial coverage" is patently untrue per cited references, ref 1 being the Wall Street Journal. Dbromage [Talk] 00:20, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's the blog drumming up comments for an Op-Ed. He is not the subject of any Wall Street Journal articles. --Tbeatty 02:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is correct. I can't find any articles properly about him. He does seem to have written at least three op-eds for the WSJ though. Here are the abstracts: May 31, 2007 'ABITRARY AND UNFAIR' (Commentary by Ted Frank urges Treasury and SEC to urge Supreme Court to keep securities litigation circumscribed by rejecting move to expand liability in Stoneridge v. Scientific-Atlanta, which centers on accounting fraud at Charter Communications) This one seems to be more important than the others. His article was cited in a Supreme Court amicus brief on the case as an example of the argument See the Conyers and Frank brief in this case. April 25, 2007 PRIME TARGET (Ted Frank commentary defends development of subprime mortgage market because it has made it possible for millions of new homeowners to benefit from new lines of credit; some borrowers have made bad decisions, but markets should be allowed to adjust themselves, as poor judgment drives some bankers out of business; activist trial lawyers' theory that investment banks are liable for damages for alleged fraud through securitization of mortgages is preposterous). October 28, 2006 FOLLOW THE MONEY (Ted Frank Rule of Law column warns against legal tactic of plaintiff attorneys holding legitimate third parties liable for intentional acts of terrorists; friendly fire could end up doing as much financial damage as terrorists themselves, with lawyers getting rich in process; lawsuits would have bankrupted several corporate victims of 9/11 attacks were it not for $7 billion taxpayer-funded bailout of potential plaintiffs). Sorry for dumping this here. I need to go to catch a flight tomorrow. Cool Hand Luke 05:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to point out that people who are typically known for their opinions rarely get stuff written about them, it's usually to, for or against. Christopher Hitchens is a case in point; no-one could doubt his notability but in a thirty year long career he has had very little biographical material acually written about him, he's one of the world's most celebrated polemicists but he has not one book written on him, and as far as I can tell, only a few limited in-depth interviews, usually when he's promoting a book. In thirty years. Ted Frank only finished his education ten years ago. John Simpson is the world's greatest foreign correspondant, but if he hadn't written six volumes of autobiography we should know hardly anything of him whatsoever. Journalists, columnists and polemcists just don't get profiled in a way their wikipediographers would dearly wish they would. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 08:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lawyers, too. These professions have a "judge the edits, not the editor" mentality just like Wikipedia. Many prominent lawyers, judges, and legal scholars have almost no biographical material written about them, and people in the profession would consider that to be fluff. Wikidemo 08:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

People notable enough to be in an encyclopedia have articles written about them. This should be an obvious truism. There are plenty of people known within their fields that are not notable enough to warrant a biograpy. For those who aren't and we "judge the edits, not the editor", we wshoul have an article on the edits, not the editors. Hitchens has 5 non-self-published "profiles" written "about" him. Frank has zero. --Tbeatty 08:43, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not obvious and not true, certainly not with many lawyers. Another case in point, Marilyn Hall Patel. I haven't fully vetted this but her notability is vastly greater than the amount of sourced biographical information. To rigidly adhere to a standard whereby biographical articles must be written about a person to consider them notable would give disproportionate coverage to celebutantes, local musical groups, television actors, and other people in pop culture, and little coverage to scholars, commentators, lawyers, and others whose notability lies is their words. That would be very unencyclopedic indeed. We don't really have to consider the big picture here, though. The prevailing view seems to be that the subject of the article is clearly notable. Wikidemo 10:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I further add Antonin Scalia. 80% of his article is given over to his views on law and his legal opinions. Should we rename it Opinions of Antonin Scalia? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 10:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've touched on exactly the point. For people who's notability is in espousing their views, the proper venue is their views, not a made up biography. If they are notable enough to be the subject of biographical works, they deserve an article. This is a fundamental part of NOR and the policies of notability. Antonin Scalia is known for his legal opinions. He is also the subject of biographical works that highlight his legal opinions, thereore Wikipedia reflects that. Ted Frank is not the subject of biographical works. His views deserve mention on the topics he has covered, but not a biography. He is not notable enough for a biography. As for the undue weight of pop culture, there are other notability guidleing as well. This is just the first step and he does not even meet that. --Tbeatty 03:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, as per nom. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 00:39, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Prominent person within field, repeatedly cited and quoted in mainstream media and is actively involved in influencing public policy. Seems like an appropriate bio to me. FCYTravis 00:43, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The subject, alas, is notable.--G-Dett 02:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep holy crap i'm agreeing with FCYTravis! ... this guy passes WP:BIO, cited by news media... what more do we need? Its got references... its even *gasp* WELL WRITTEN *gasp*  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 02:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The subject obviously passes WP:BIO and WP:N with multiple non-trivial mentions in a variety of reliable sources. The nominators stated basis for deletion is patently false. bbx 03:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• non-trivial mentions is not the criteria. To be notable as a biography, he should have non-trivial publications about him, not just quotes from him. That is the notability guideline. Since his biography self-published, it is not notable. His views (which are common) and AEI are notable as there are plenty of references about both, but he is not notable as a separate biographical article. --Tbeatty 08:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The subject is a leading expert on tort reform who is quoted often in mainstream publications. The article appears to be verifiable and neutral. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:09, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and Elinor, given marginally notable subject's desire for article not to exist. Would be a "weak keep" if he did not object. Changing to Weak Keep given subject's views, or lack of same. --Mantanmoreland 18:18, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I don't believe the subject has expressed any formal objection to or support of the article; in fact he has noted specifically (above) that he prefers voters to base their decision solely on Wikipedia policy. ATren 18:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your point is well taken.--Mantanmoreland 05:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Notable figure. Type 40 19:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. There is much too much talk about whether he is notable. That so many people have an opinion of him means something re: notability, yes? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.166.24.130 (talk) 19:39, August 27, 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. The subject is obviously notable, and the bulk of deletion arguments seem to be wiki-lawyering based around some recent Wikipedia politics. Such arguments should have little or nothing to do with this discussion. Whether you WP:ILIKEIT or not, the subject exceeds WP:N and our biographical guidelines for inclusion. Burntsauce 20:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Frank is a notable lawyer and writer on legal and other matters, satisfying WP:BIO. Edison 21:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Avi 22:09, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The article satisfies the requirements set forth by WP:BIO as a notable attorney and writer on related matters. RFerreira 23:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Very Weak Keep. Not very notable and I was leaning towards "Delete" but, based on the discussion, deserves a ((notability|Biographies)) tag, rather than a deletion. Since a decision to delete would trump me anyway, I'm going to be only slightly bold and add the tag amidst the debate. I note that this article may be useful more for what it cites TO then the direct subject, so it deserves a more considered evaluation. --Doug.^Talk 23:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a further comment on my own vote: As a lawyer, I do not consider Ted Frank to be notable - in fact, I'd never heard of him until I saw the request for comments on Project Law's talk page, but then again I don't necessarily follow the tort-reform movement closely and it was interesting to find an article on him and be able to read about his work. Whether he justifies an article is another matter and this article does seem rather extensive for such a person. When you are practicing or writing about law, any lawyer can suddenly be important - if only until the case, the brief, or the journal article is done - but obviously every lawyer who's ever been published a couple times and commented publicly on this or that, can't have her or his own article. --Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 00:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The impression that I get is that Frank is a notable figure in the so-called "tort reform" movement. However, I share your concerns and I think the tag is a good idea.--Mantanmoreland 14:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

§ 4[edit]

• Keep Frank is specifically mentioned in at least three books findable in Google Books, for his role in early 1990s Usenet, which is indeed notable. Two of these books include Michele Tepper's "Usenet communities and the Cultural Politics of Information", which discusses him and various other afu participants. I think this meets your "secondary sources" criteria of notability. (Comment by John Mark Ockerbloom)
• Delete. The subject is borderline notable, and I'm not happy about the circumstances in which it was created, which seem to include using it as a weapon against him. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• It was created in August of 2005.--G-Dett 14:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• And deleted. Then recreated recently following a dispute with the subject. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 14:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Just a comment to clarify, from someone who has been involved from early on in this dispute: while it is true that it seemed to have been recreated duing the recent on-Wiki conflict, I do not get the impression that the original re-creator did it in bad faith, or to be used as a weapon. Here is the initial recreation - I see no evidence of bad faith there. This is not intended to influence your vote, I just wanted to clarify. :-) ATren 14:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Question. Re: "I'm not happy about the circumstances in which it was created, which seem to include using it as a weapon against him", (font color="Purple" SlimVirgin). I don't know enough about this article to vote yet, but I don't understand how an article can be used as a "weapon" if it stays within Wikipedia guidelines. Angelina Wartenberg 14:54, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment In my opinion, the fact that Ted Frank is a Wikipedia editor muddles the whole issue. Let Encyclopædia Britannica, Encarta, or Citizendium deal with it. --Pixelface 14:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Yeah, he's not ultra-famous, but I feel comfortable calling him notable.
  As an aside, whether or not the subject of an article wants the article is completely irrelevant; we're here to build an encyclopedia, not cater to peoples' demands. As I recall, John Seigenthaler, Sr. has requested his article be deleted as well, but that doesn't mean we acquiesce to such requests. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The article's sources show that he's notable; yeah, the context of the article's creation, and the Michael Moore business, is messy, but the article itself looks fine. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:50, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the time is over when we can pretend that wikipedia is unimportant, and the major controversies involving it are just in-house squabbles. The test of a mature information service is that it covers things in an objective way even if they involve itself. I think some of the opposition arises from a praiseworthy feeling of not wanting to make ourselves sound too self-important, but when our concerns are the subjects of major outside coverage, and involve articles on people to whom great attention is paid like MM, then they are important and noteworthy. WP, the encyclopedia that doesnt think itself important. DGG (talk) 01:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Agree with DGG's sentiment expressed above. Frank seems notable enough to me (a quick Lexis/Nexis search for Ted Frank and American Enterprise Institute turns up over 70 hits, some are of little substance but others include a Washington Post editorial he wrote and comments he made about Samuel Alito to Market Watch when Alito was nominated to the court) both as a pundit consulted on certain legal matters and a scholar at AEI. The Wikipedia politics surrounding this article and this AfD are, of course, utterly irrelevant but do seem to be swaying some voters. The fact that the article was (re)created after the MM brouhaha has absolutely no bearing on whether this article is a keeper and I'm disturbed that some editors and admins seem to think that it does.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • • I'm afraid 70 hits on Lexis/Nexis for a lawyer is a bit unimpressive. --Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 04:14, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doug I moved your comment so it was after mine rather than the one below, which is where I think you meant to put it (if not my apologies and please feel free to move it back). Your point is well taken and your comments above were measured and helpful. Frank is clearly on the cusp of notability (i.e. looking at WP:BIO doesn't provide a clear answer) and part of my decision to vote keep is simply that I tend to err on the side of inclusion for figures who are fairly prominent in more "substantive" fields like politics, economics, law, etc. (as opposed to minor wrestlers and such). Also the L/N search was for Ted Frank and AEI--a search for just the phrase "Ted Frank" pulls up 375 hits, though many seem to be for a Hollywood exec.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:02, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of search did you do? I get 700-odd results in LexisNexis news, all (English), although a slight majority refer to other Ted Franks including the Axentis exec and Hollywood exec. I agree with your sentiments on notability for lawyers, incidentally. Cool Hand Luke 22:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Bigtimepeace, you are correct, I had an edit conflict and merged my comments at the end instead of where they belonged. Thanks. --Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 01:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or delete per THF. —  $PЯINGεrαgђ  03:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I poked this vote, and it made me bleed. --lucid 03:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Springeragh may be joking but I think he makes a valid point. It appears to be a marginal case, and I believe that under BLP that the subject of the article has a voice in whether it stays. If he felt it should go, I would favor it going. Since he abstained I vote keep, but weakly.--Mantanmoreland 23:19, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Would a significant number of readers come to Wikipedia looking for information about this person? Yes, based on the number of times he appears in public media as a pundit. JamesMLane t c 13:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The question is whether we should provide it. Wikipedia is not all things to all people especially for biographies. --Tbeatty 21:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - oh geez! Usenet deja vu! And he sure seems notable beyond that. ←Ben^B4 19:24, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete looking at ths sources. We seem top be really reaching here to try and find anything approaching a reliable source for any substantive information> All the factual stuff comes form directories, not profiles or biographies, and the balance is just crap-off-teh-Internets. I find DGG's comments that the importance of Wikipedia somehow confers notability on this guy to be very unpersuasive. Guy (Help!) 10:10, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. He's kind of obscure outside of wikipedia and michaelmoore.com, but he has written for and been referenced by more than one notable publication.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 17:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not notable--Raphael1 22:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.