Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Frankl

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 of the debate was delete Proto||type 12:27, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] David Frankl

I do not beleive that this person is notable enough for an article. The relevant criteria on WP:BIO appears to be "Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events", as there is no spefic bullet for people in the legal proffession. The claim of notability in the article is that he represented the Attorney General of Canada in a notable court case. However, a Google Canada search for "David Frankl" Canada gets "about 21" hits, of which 3 are about this person - and one of those is this Wikipedia article. A search on Google.com for David Frankl results in 731,000 hits; of the first 20 results two are about this David Frankl, one of which is the Wikipedia article (most of the hits seem to be about a doctor from Oregon, although there are at least three other high-rating David Frankls).

While a non-notable biography is a CSD criteria, this article does make a claim notability. Also based on the recently deleted Elliot Frankl (undergoing a deletion review that will almost certainly uphold the deletion), I expect this nomination will be contested. This nomination should be taken as an explicit delete vote. Thryduulf 10:48, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Asserts importance, and is probably similar to the various "celebrity lawyers" in the US. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-04-6 13:19
• Delete as Vaughancruft. Brian makes a good point; however, Lexis/Nexis shows nine articles, all on May 3, 2005, 5 of which are duplicates of a Canadian newswire story. Unlike the many (grrrr) celebrity lawyers in the US, Frankl has not received any coverage on any other issue or case. As Stifle said in a different AfD, his fifteen minutes are over. Thatcher131 14:34, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete; there is no such person listed in the Ministry of Justice website. [1] RGTraynor 16:05, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment: RGTraynor posted misleading info, person is on Ministry of Justice website [2]--67.71.85.9 18:58, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Ah. Possibly the article creator should have spelled Mr. Frankel's name correctly, then. RGTraynor 19:26, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree but I think the spelling on the Ministry's website is incorrect, not sure though--64.228.150.230 22:36, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Er, then the B.C. Court of Appeal is wrong too in their decision on R. v. Bryan. Samaritan 07:19, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete vaughancruft. Is that barrow getting heavy guys? Just zis Guy you know? 16:41, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per JzG. Eusebeus 16:54, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. verifiable. For great justice. 18:23, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Verifiability is not the only criteria. See WP:BIO. Thryduulf 18:38, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes, but that is opinion, not deletion policy. For great justice. 20:01, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:BIO.--Isotope23 19:28, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn bio Imarek 21:23, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete verifiability isn't the only standard ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 00:06, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, but it is policy, whereas notability is not. For great justice. 02:02, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, verifiable as working lawyer. And that's that. Deizio 00:16, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 02:30, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:BIO, just a lawyer. --maclean25 03:55, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Ardenn 04:01, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete this misspelled article, consisting almost entirely of a (wildly overstated) peacock term claim to have been "thrust into the spotlight and received national attention". No prejudice against an article on the real S. David Frankel, Q.C., a senior counsel for the federal government in Vancouver, who might be notable. This article, based entirely on a one-time newswire misspelling, is useless, and we should avoid creating a spelling redirect by moving this piece itself - especially since there's at least one David Frankl, the Oregon doctor, who may merit an article. It strains my mind that somebody rushed out to create this article here. Samaritan 07:19, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Some are born great, some become great, others have deletions thrust upon them. KillerChihuahua^?!? 11:28, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. — Deckiller 21:57, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Samaritan's well thought out reasons. Luigizanasi 06:07, 11 April 2006 (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.