Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Law

Shortcuts

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Law. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Law|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

Note that there are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Law. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Law/archive

Purge page cache

watch

This list includes sublists of deletion debates on articles related to Wikipedia:WikiProject Law.

Law[edit]

Khandoker Musa Khaled[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No significant and independent coverage. Does not meet the conditions of WP:JUDGE Ontor22 (talk) 06:12, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Bangladesh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:15, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aloy Ejimakor[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This subject fails WP:GNG as well as WP:ANYBIO because he is not the actual subject of significant in-depth coverage by multiple independent reliable sources. He is mentioned in sources covering other topics. That's not enough. JFHJr (㊟) 05:23, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Nigeria. JFHJr (㊟) 05:23, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:05, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (Not vote) The subject was mentioned on multiple RS but not in-depth. He may meet Wikipedia:Verifiability, WP:RS but doesn't meet Wikipedia:Notability as his private life (in-depth) wasn't covered sources.

Cheers, (Chat With Term)talk 05:39, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How does he meet WP:N? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:48, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per your points, let's add WP:CRYSTAL and WP:TOOSOON. Thank you, War Term. JFHJr (㊟) 05:52, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (edit conflict) per sources used, they are all "Ejimakor says", but that is not what we're after per WP:N. One mentioned "American trained Lawyer", but that's not enough. Vanguard is probably an ok source, not sure about the other 2.

He should probably be mentioned at Nnamdi_Kanu#Insurgency_and_second_arrest, "As of 2024, Kanu's lead counsel is..." Something like that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:48, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I retract the WP:N comment. What about the other two? @Gråbergs Gråa Sång @JFHJr (Chat With Term)talk 06:16, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If WP:N fails, they're not very relevant for this discussion. No WP:N, no article. Existing is not enough. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:19, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

War Term: If you're the creator and you're retracting N, why not change your vote to speedy delete? JFHJr (㊟) 06:21, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge

While the article may meet Wikipedia:Verifiability and WP:RS, it doesn't meet WP:N at the moment. I suggest deleting and merging to Nnamdi_Kanu#Insurgency and second arrest as it should be Wikipedia:TOOSOON per the comment of @Gråbergs Gråa Sång (Chat With Term)talk 07:33, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect seems at worst harmless, I added a mention of him at [1]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:25, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mahender Singh Tawar[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Minor Indian bureaucrate fails WP:GNG, WP:NBIO, WP:NPOL. No meaningful WP:SIGCOV in any sources; coverage cited in article (and found in BEFORE search) is WP:TRIVIALMENTION of him in the course of reporting on local government activities, and much of it is problematic under WP:NEWSORGINDIA. Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:55, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:25, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete BLP built in routine announcements of promotions and transfers. Mccapra (talk) 06:19, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Registered Agents Inc.[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article's primary justification is that it is the parent company for Epik, which is a notable fact already reported directly on the Epik article, and it would not be sufficiently notable otherwise based on WP:INHERITORG. The remaining items mentioned comprise insignificant coverage with only a few cited references focused on the company as the central topic. Those articles appear biased in part, based heavily on gossip, and show that the company provides business registration services to entities that are the reason for the journalistic coverage due to various criminal allegations associated with them. However, being the registration agent for other organizations that did notable or notorious things does not convey notability to Registered Agents. An earlier Talk page discussion regarding the page's questionable notability did not attract any substantive comments in support of retaining it, so I am nominating it for deletion. CapnPhantasm (talk) 21:37, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as there has been sustained and an increasing amount of coverage by WP:RSes, particularly by WP:RSPSOURCES. - Amigao (talk) 21:43, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Politics, Companies, Internet, Idaho, and Wyoming. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:09, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ICanHazPDF[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A hashtag used 4 times in 2015 with two fluff pieces written about it fails GNG. Remsense诉 15:16, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Academic journals. Remsense诉 15:16, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not sure where "4 times in 2015" is coming from, as it appears to continue to be used as recently as last week, and it receives in-depth coverage in academic literature, eg [2]. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:38, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The BBC and Atlanic articles are pretty in-depth, not puff pieces, and discuss the subject as being part of wider issues around copyright and open access, I'd consider that to be SIGCOV. -- D'n'B-t -- 18:20, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:26, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It is notable and reliably sourced. WC gudang inspirasi (^{Read! Talk!}) 01:31, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Doing a quick search, the hashtag is completely notable; many in-depth references exist beyond the cited ones. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 00:55, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Fox (author)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to be overly promotional and shows no sign of meeting WP:GNG due to lack of RS. — VORTEX³⁴²⁷ (Talk!) 03:15, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Businesspeople, Entertainment, Finance, Law, Internet, California, Michigan, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:19, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Vortex - We got a notice that this page was flagged for deletion. Great timing as I have been meaning to hopefully update it. The info is old and not entirely accurate as it was written by fans of my books years ago. Can u share any guidance on how we can improve its "notability" to meet Wikipedia standards? Also what is "RS"? You're probably a volunteer so thanks for all the work you do for the Wikipedia community. Scott Nelsonave21 (talk) 20:34, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Scott. Please read this link WP:GNG for the general standards to meet "notability". On Wikipedia, RS stands for "reliable sources". For authors, this commonly includes reviews of your books. None of the sources cited on the article are WP:RS because they are just raw interviews of you, only mention you briefly (see WP:GNG for more info) or are written by Forbes contributors (see this link WP:FORBES for info on deciding what Forbes articles count as RS).

Also, yes, like many editors on Wikipedia, I am a volunteer and edit as a hobby :) — VORTEX³⁴²⁷ (Talk!) 06:33, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mention: @Nelsonave21 — VORTEX³⁴²⁷ (Talk!) 06:33, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, I'm concerned about you saying "We got a notice that this page was flagged for deletion." Just a head's up — if you got an email about this, please be aware that scammers have targeted people whose articles have been deleted or flagged for deletion before (WP:SCAM), offering to restore it or something similar. Most, if not all, of these offers are fradulent. — VORTEX³⁴²⁷ (Talk!) 09:13, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vortex: thank you for this detailed reply. This is super helpful. We will work on it. What is the best way to submit or update? Is there a timeline? Thanks again, including for the accurate warning about the (likely scammy) deletion email we received. Nelsonave21 (talk) 19:02, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nelsonave21: Please see WP:AFD, particularly this line: If you wish for an article to be kept, you can directly improve the article to address the reasons for deletion given in the nomination. You can search [for] reliable sources so that the article meets notability guidelines. AfD discussion like this one are kept open for at least seven days before a decision is made (multiple editors have to give their opinions first before a decision about the consensus can be made, so this discussion will probably go on for longer).

In your case, editing the article yourself would be COI editing, which is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia. However, you can find examples of reliable sources about you or your books and post it here, on this AfD, to prove the article meets WP:GNG. This would prevent deletion. Again, most RS for authors takes the form of book reviews in newspapers, magazines, or periodicals.

If this AfD is closed with consensus to delete the article, the article can be recreated if and only if it satisfies WP:GNG. In this case, I recommend the AfC process, which involves writing a draft article and submitting it for review. — VORTEX³⁴²⁷ (Talk!) 06:19, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've not reviewed the article yet, but while it is normal for an AFD discussion to be closed within a week or a month, don't worry too much about that, you can usually get an admin to restore the contents as a draft or by email if you'd like to work on it. "Deletion" is not generally irreversible. Alpha3031 (t • c) 04:36, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sentencing of Donald Trump in New York[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This poorly referenced substub should be redirected to the small but better referenced section at Prosecution_of_Donald_Trump_in_New_York#Sentencing. Right now, we don't know what this will be, so we are crystall-balling stuff. No prejudice to this being restored as an article when the section grows, but there is no need for this to remain as a stand-alone article in the current form. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:21, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and United States of America. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:21, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will consider either putting it in my draftspace for incubation/protection. Currently im choosing to keep it up.

If i do put it in my draftspace, I will readd it to the wiki in 1 or 2 weeks before that.

~ Snipertron12 :3 ~ [|User|Talk|Cont|] 12:29, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Snipertron12: you shouldn't unilaterally move an article while an AfD is open. And if you wait for the AfD to close, and it closes as delete, there won't be anything to draftify as deletion follows closure usually pretty promptly.

Also, your intention to publish this again 1-2 weeks before sentencing is not materially different to where we are now, in that it will still be about an uncertain future event. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:23, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there is no way of telling as of now if his sentencing will be independently notable from his prosecution & conviction, so it's best to leave it all in one article. estar8806 (talk) ★ 13:09, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No reason for an article on a future event; the Prosecution article has a sentencing section. David notMD (talk) 15:01, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - An ongoing current event might or might not warrant an article in Wikipedia. But starting a new article for every development turns Wikipedia into a forum for news bulletins, which it is not. Uporządnicki (talk) 16:54, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:06, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- per nom 2601:441:8284:1CC0:2CC7:8112:D93C:9FB3 (talk) 21:40, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Everything in this article is covered and better sourced in the main article, so this is just a dupe. ruth Bader yinzburg (talk) ★

Delete. There is no reason to split this from the main article at this point in time. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:41, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's WP:CONTENTFORK at this point. Prosecution, conviction and sentencing can all be covered in one place. Keivan.f^Talk 17:13, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TOOSOON, WP:FORK, and WP:OR. Bearian (talk) 15:03, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1978 West Virginia judicial elections[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The West Virginia judicial election articles for 1978, 1980, and 1982 all fail WP:NOTDB. voorts (talk/contributions) 05:14, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Law, Politics, and West Virginia. voorts (talk/contributions) 05:14, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as a malformed nomination. The justification given is an alias of WP:INDISCRIMINATE, which is fairly clear on what constitutes indiscriminate information, and none of the examples apply: a judicial election is not a "summary-only example of a creative work". It is not a "lyrics database". It is not an "excessive description of unexplained statistics". It is not "an exhaustive log of software updates". The third option mentions election statistics, but describes "unexplained" data taken out of context that might be too lengthy or confusing for readers: vote totals for each candidate are the opposite of that. WP:INDISCRIMINATE plainly does not apply to a straightforward description of an election. P Aculeius (talk) 11:28, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The spirit of NOTDB is that data should be presented with independent sourcing to explain its importance. These articles are purely election results. Maybe merging them into one article with a general description of WV judicial elections would meet NLIST, but as of now, I don't think that these meet notability guidelines and NOPAGE applies. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:13, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ per WP:ADHERENCE which says "the shortcut is not the policy". James500 (talk) 15:53, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've now explained a bit more above why I think it fails NOTDB; I agree that I should have provided more of an explanation in my initial rationale. It's also not clear to me what ADHERENCE is trying to get at. The implication of linking to the policy is that I'm incorporating it by reference. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:29, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have struck my !vote in the absence of evidence of GNG. INDISCRIMINATE does not say anything about explaining importance. NOTSTATS says "statistics that lack context or explanation can reduce readability and may be confusing", which may be what the first sentence of INDISCRIMINATE is talking about. I don't think anyone could be confused by these election results. James500 (talk) 19:24, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The topic of West Virginia judicial elections satisfies GNG: [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]. Only 1980 West Virginia judicial elections actually contains a single state supreme court election. James500 (talk) 20:02, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If that article is created, I would support a merge of the Supreme Court portion of the 1980 article to that page, and redirect the rest. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:15, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know if I have time to create an article on West Virginia judicial elections during this AfD. In the absence of such an article, I think that at least some of the material on the state supreme court election in 1980 West Virginia judicial elections be merged to Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia#Elections. I am satisfied that the state supreme court elections satisfy LISTN. There is also coverage of Judge Thomas E McHugh in newspapers, and coverage elsewhere such as [9]. James500 (talk) 17:58, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: An WP:ATD would be a redirect/merge to 1978 West Virginia elections, but that target does not currently exist. Curbon7 (talk) 17:35, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Curbon7: There are some other alternatives. We could move this to 1978 West Virginia elections and create empty headers tagged as needing expansion for other elected offices (there is also a 1978 United States Senate election in West Virginia); or, we could merge all three articles in this nomination into a 1970s–80s West Virginia judicial elections article, or just a West Virginia judicial elections article, with links out to articles covering years not in this article. BD2412 T 18:15, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  I wouldn't oppose creation of West Virginia judicial elections and a merge to that. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:50, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Merging Supreme Court elections may be appropriate, but not the trial court elections. Even for current elections like 2020 West Virginia elections, we only have the statewide elections, not the non-notable local-level ones. There are so many of those that are simply not covered. Reywas92^Talk 01:52, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  That makes sense. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:27, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all These are not notable elections - the West Virginia Circuit Courts are the lowest level of courts in the state, and we generally do not have articles for trial court elections in other states either. These barely receive even local attention, often unopposed as seen in several here. If the only source is the government's report of results, there is simply no basis for an article, as we are not a database of every minor election result. Supreme_Court_of_Appeals_of_West_Virginia#Elections could be expanded to have a subarticle for those statewide elections, but these fail WP:N. Reywas92^Talk 01:48, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all I do not think WP:NOTDB applies here - but I do not think they meet WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 04:01, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all: The elections in circuit court is rarely ever notable outside the county/circuit that the court is in. And sometimes not even that. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 23:29, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm relisting this discussion due to the proposed Merge. But I can't close this as a Merge to a nonexistent article so there has to be some reassurance that said article will be created during this discussion or another Merge target article selected by consensus. Otherwise, this discussion will likely close as Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:29, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to relister Liz, Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia#Elections does exist. Therefore a valid merger target already exists. James500 (talk) 21:55, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Political positions of Andrew Cuomo[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

this article can probably be deleted and it's information merged with the Andrew Cuomo article since the US state governors seem to generally not have separate pages outlining their political positions CGP05 (talk) 02:34, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak merge. The Andrew Cuomo article is pretty long so I understand the idea of a split. If this article was expanded significantly I would change to keep. Esolo5002 (talk) 05:03, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Politics, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:12, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Short and also largely duplicative. Split wasn't needed, or at least not done like this. Reywas92^Talk 14:58, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as pointed out by others, Andrew Cuomo is waaay too long already. This page isn't perfect, but I think we can keep it. Toadspike [Talk] 17:12, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Toadspike — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 18:43, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep When I created this page, Cuomo was considered to have a big future in government and politics. Within a few years, his career was essentially totally over. I still think there is historic validity to a Political Positions page and it will shorten how much text is on the page, but there is no great strength to the page existing on its own anymore. PickleG13 (talk) 23:22, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:18, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep since the main Andrew Cuomo page could do with being shortened and cut up already. Duke of New Gwynedd (talk | contrib.) 18:46, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

M. Firon & Co.[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I see no reason this is notable. It just seems to be a law firm with no significant coverage. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 02:43, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Companies, and Israel. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:10, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Internationally operating, 8th-largest law firm of Israel with plenty of coverage in 74 (!) years of existence. Easy pass of NORG. Unclear how this could have nevertheless been nominated. gidonb (talk) 03:37, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Gidonb, could you provide a few hebrew RS with sigcov? FortunateSons (talk) 11:01, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I had put a few references in the article when I removed the reference warning. There are plenty of sources out there by the golden NEXIST rule. Nom's It just seems to be a law firm with no significant coverage doesn't convey a solid BEFORE. We can belittle any company or topic by putting "it just seems to be" before, while claiming that there seems to be no SIGCOV. Seems to be is extremely uncommitted. Such nominations are better not made as we have too many nominations already. M. Firon & Co is definitely not just a law firm. It's steadily one of Israel's top 10 law firms (currently number 8) and has been around for 74 years. This was written in the article all along. gidonb (talk) 22:42, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:27, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:37, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

V. N. Srinivasa Rao[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I do not think that this person meets the criteria for notability. I have been unable to find any reference to him other than the The Hindu article (https://web.archive.org/web/20240317044514/https://www.thehindu.com/features/friday-review/history-and-culture/the-lawyer-as-a-writer/article4683660.ece), which just effectively said it was nice to read. And cryptic metadata from library websites who happen to have the book (which seems to just be stanford and nyu https://searchworks.stanford.edu/view/in00000071311 ) Mason (talk) 02:01, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, History, Law, and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:25, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment he was pretty clearly a Madras barrister[10]. He's cited for appearances a number of times in the Madras Law Journal[11]. I'm not finding a lot more than that.
Are you questioning whether the Madras chief justices book exists? It is held by 8 WorldCat Participating libraries. The comment about cryptic metadata doesn't make sense. Oblivy (talk) 07:02, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I believe you are confusing notability and verifiability. Just because a source is hard to find doesn't mean it isn't reliable. See WP:PAYWALL. Goldenarrow9 (talk) 19:36, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I used my university's library to see if I could find anything else on the subject. My comment on cryptic meta data was that that was literally the only additional information I could find about him. I am not rejecting the source, for being difficult to get access to. My point was that there was literately nothing else when I searched other than that metadata. Typically for someone to meet notability they have to be covered by multiple sources. And, I can't find any support for independent coverage. The book in question wasn't even something he published. The book was edited by another person long after his death. Mason (talk) 00:46, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense. Will respond more at bottom. Oblivy (talk) 02:39, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Page fails WP:GNG. No significant coverage on the subject in the sources which are also poor. Subject does not meet basic criteria to be considered notable due to insignificant coverage in multiple published, secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. If this criteria can be met, I would reconsider my vote. RangersRus (talk) 12:25, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note to Closer. Page was created by sockpuppet and is good for WP:G5 speedy deletion. RangersRus (talk) 12:29, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RangersRus, this article is not eligible for CSD G5. You've made this kind of comment several times which is a mistaken interpretation of G5. Please review WP:CSD carefully. G5 is for block evasion, not simply for being the work of a sockpuppet. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:24, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. I striked my comment. Is it right though that "when a blocked or banned person uses an alternate account (sockpuppet) to avoid a restriction, any pages created via the sock account after the earliest block or ban of any of that person's accounts qualify for G5"? WP:G5. RangersRus (talk) 12:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see an SPI on 21 March and this article was created 19 March. Blocks were in April. Perhaps I'm misreading or missing something? Oblivy (talk) 22:23, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

G5 does not apply to the initial accounts that are blocked for socking if they are not evading a block at that point. It only applies to the articles created by accounts that come after the initial case/block.

In this case, both the accounts were used simultaneously and neither of them had an active block. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 20:38, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as opinion is divided. Just FYI, a general comment for all AFDs, when an editor says "seems like" or "likely" or "appears to be" it means to me that the editor hasn't read or seen the sources and are basing their opinion on attributes like the title or the publisher. If that's the case, it's good not to have an absolutist opinion on what should happen with an article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:08, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify I am right down the middle on this. This guy seems to have been a prominent barrister, wrote a number of books including a treatise on administrative law. Maybe also wrote about temples (not sure if it's the same author).

But I've tried to find the sources, and don't find anything substantial about him except for the two links on the page, and as @Smasongarrison points out above that's a book by him, or perhaps comprising judgments curated by him. And one The Hindu journalist who liked his book.

Complaints about the origin of the article are, subject to further developments, misplaced. The author seems to have a particular interest[12] in Calamur.

If, on chance, there is someone out there who can improve this article let them do it. It will not be me. There's a conversation over unblocking going on so perhaps @Hölderlin2019 will live to edit another day. Oblivy (talk) 02:56, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be onboard with draftifying. If he were in my subject area, I'd inter-library loan the book. Maybe someone will be so motivated. Mason (talk) 03:05, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Draftify, either one. Hyperbolick (talk) 09:23, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 20:36, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The Hindu source is fine, but it's one source. I don't find anything in Gscholar or Books, there are some papers he's written on various aspects of the law, but these don't affect notability here. I think there could be more sourcing in the local language, but I can't locate any. Oaktree b (talk) 23:27, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Debian Free Software Guidelines[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable precursor of The Open Source Definition. I was barely able to scrape up enough independent analysis to create a viable article about the OSD and the related Open Definition. There is much less available on the Debian definition.

The last AfD was in 2007 and notability was not considered.

Furthermore, I cannot support this article's existence per WP:NOPAGE because the Debian definition, slightly modified, was adopted as the OSD and the texts are very similar[13][14]. (t · c) buidhe 22:19, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Technology, and Computing. Skynxnex (talk) 22:44, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A Google Books search seems to produce a couple hundred mentions. Are these all cursory? --Joy (talk) 07:07, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much all I found was quotes of the definition and mentions—no significant coverage differentiating it from the OSD. (t · c) buidhe 07:11, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, let's give people some time then to try to find better coverage. If it can't be found, and if the mass of primary and cursory references isn't deemed worthy of a standalone article, then there's the matter of where to redirect - Debian Social Contract or even a section inside Debian may also be good destinations. --Joy (talk) 10:43, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already visited AFD before so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:50, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Melmann 08:16, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect: I found some brief mentions in books, but nothing more. Any extensive discussion of the guidelines I could find was authored by people who are intimately involved with the open-source community, bringing their independence into question. My examination wasn't exhaustive, but my search has turned up the same result as the nominator's. HyperAccelerated (talk) 19:38, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep significant coverage in multiple reliable sources: [15], [16], [17]. ~Kvng (talk) 21:04, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those sources aren't independent and can't be used to establish notability. Hertzog and Krafft are both Debian developers, and DiBona spent nearly 20 years at Google on OSS. HyperAccelerated (talk) 21:46, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The first one contains no information that is not in my proposed draft for the Open Source Definition article and the last two are written from a transparently non-independent perspective. (t · c) buidhe 00:52, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see whether there could be any consensus on Redirection or on a Redirect target article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:32, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd merge to The Open Source Definition or buidhe's draft. Aaron Liu (talk) 11:48, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or redirect per nom. Toadspike [Talk] 10:30, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Claudio Ferrada[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Never held any office that makes them inherently pass NPOL and not enough sources to pass GNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 20:35, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Law, and Chile. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:41, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment perhaps not notable per WP POL. I'm the author of the page. Feel free to delete or keep it. I have no objections. --Old-AgedKid (talk) 10:37, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:36, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - arguably the post of Presidential Regional Delegate is enough to pass NPOL. The post has its own article in Spanish wikipedia, Delegado presidencial regional de Ñuble [es], Delegado presidencial regional de Chile [es]. --Soman (talk) 01:34, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 03:25, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:28, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: the WP:BURDEN of demonstrating notability is on those asserting keep. What another language Wikipedia chooses to do is fine, but not applicable to en.wikipedia pillars, polices, and guidelines. In almost four weeks of waiting, nobody has stepped up to add sufficient sources to meet ANYBIO, GNG, BLP, NPOL or any other relevant SNG. Even the page creator has no special attachement to the page. BusterD (talk) 16:23, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]