Deletion of Ted Frank

Comment: 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 ().  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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Assume good faith (WP:AGF)

Comment: as clearly  notable. I am puzzled as is MCB
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)

Comment: Fails , and I'm wary of the circumstances surrounding this page's creation
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)

Comment: The article satisfies the requirements set forth by  as a notable attorney and writer on related matters
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)

Comment: as |obviously notable, |like him or not.  I'll work on this article this week
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:IDONTLIKEIT)

Comment: The subject obviously passes  and  with multiple non-trivial mentions in a variety of reliable sources. The nominators stated basis for deletion is patently false
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO||WP:N)

Comment: Frank is a notable lawyer and writer on legal and other matters, satisfying 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)

Comment: 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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Be bold (WP:BB)

Comment: Subject appears |notable
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)

Comment: Fails 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)

Comment: 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  or not, the subject exceeds  and our biographical guidelines for inclusion
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:ILIKEIT||WP:N)