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.

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

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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:33, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

National Lawyers' Congress

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

lacks sufficient coverage in reliable, independent sources to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for organizations. Additionally, much of the content is either promotional or lacks verifiable third-party references Moarnighar (talk) 08:28, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Moarnighar (talk) 08:28, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and India. Shellwood (talk) 10:02, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:38, 18 October 2024 (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.

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 no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 15:35, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Parker (security researcher)

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

Autobiographical article, content is not substantiated by the sources and it does not seem possible to write more than a stub about the subject. The sources almost entirely briefly mention the subject in connection with a security vulnerability, some include short quotes from the subject, none seem to provide details on the subject themselves. Brandon (talk) 02:15, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Computing. Brandon (talk) 02:15, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please provide more details about what isn't substantiated by the sources? The small handful of paragraphs without citations have information that's given in articles cited elsewhere. If you could point to any specifics, I would be happy to either show which article(s) it comes from, or if one of the more recent citations that discuss it have been missed, add them.

In a lot of cases, the notability of a subject comes from their work, so I'm a bit confused how this would be different from many other articles on Wikipedia. Is this simply a categorization problem? In the public sector circles where this information travels, the name and works are quite well known; the number of high quality sources would also suggest this.

As for your comment about it not being possible to write more than a stub, I have to disagree. There is a lot more detail about the works and their specific effects that could be added, but I didn't find it prudent for myself to add that. Additionally, WP:Stub suggests that some editors and the bot would find that 250, 300, or 500 words (this one is 650 as of this note) is an appropriate length to not be considered a stub.

Having said all of that, I note your status on Wikipedia, and understand that there is little likelihood of this article staying. NorthAntara (talk) 03:06, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please ignore the admin icon, I'm just someone who used to spend too much time on Wikipedia and enjoys computer security. My AfD nominations end with the article being kept as often as anyone else.

Being the primary author of an article about yourself is not recommended. You were extremely transparent, which is appreciated, it is just very challenging to write a neutral article based entirely on verifiable sources as the subject of the article yourself. With that said, here are some article about security researchers that have a tone and structure I'd suggest emulating: Tavis Ormandy, Eva Galperin, and Charlie Miller. Cutting inferences such as "leading to increased awareness and remediation of these issues" and the entire impact section would be the first edits I personally would make. Brandon (talk) 04:40, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If I were the type to make bets on AfD results, I'd say this'd most likely close as no consensus like the Ian Coldwater AfD. Not sure if I'll dig in to see if I can find more sources for this one. We don't really do field specific versions of BIO for "coverage is pretty rare for this field" (except for academia) but on a quick review I'd say it's borderline for BASIC, not an outright fail. Not (yet) going to make it a !vote though, even if should it be possible or make sense to enter one for no consensus (wouldn't make much of a difference anyway since it's not a vote). Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:10, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:12, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Leaving aside the autobiographically-ness of the article, I think having ArsTechnica, a variety of legal sources, TechCrunch and SC Media go into depth about a specific vulnerability and explicitly accredit the discovery of said vulnerabilities to a person, should push the said person over the bar of WP:GNG, since, such coverage is pretty rare in the field of cybersecurity and would count as significant coverage (imo).Sohom (talk) 06:03, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 08:58, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:OR. The biggest problem with autobiography on a website that never ever publishes original research is that it violates our reason for existence as an encyclopedia. As of 2024, everyone not hiding under a rock and illiterate (I’m being figurative here, not literal) knows that we don’t do creative writing, publish patents pending, and experimental scholarly work. Everything written on Wikipedia needs a citation: it’s a basic requirement for biographical writing, which as a general rule requires significant coverage in three or more secondary or reliable primary sources. We are currently being sued for just mentioning a judge’s name; India could cut off another 1/4 of humanity from Wikipedia. Turning to the subject page, ~~about 2/3 is completely unsourced.~~ there’s not a single secondary source. As an aside, we really avoid being a soap box for advocacy and we are not a free web host. Sorry, but the writer knew or should have known that this was going to be deleted. Bearian (talk)

I’ve removed all of the unsourced information and analysis, stubifying the page. I think this is closer to WP:BARE than before. Bearian (talk) 13:55, 19 October 2024 (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.

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 no consensus‎. Daniel (talk) 22:20, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Javier Díaz Noci

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

I don't see quite enough here to convince me that WP:PROF has been comfortably passed. Happy to hear other people's take. Uhooep (talk) 21:47, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Spain. Shellwood (talk) 21:50, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Law, and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:40, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep . I see enough citations of this subject's work to think he meets C1 of WP:NPROF. Qflib (talk) 17:15, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:25, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:32, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I've been digging and I'm still on the fence whether or not the person is notable under WP:NPROF. The article as it is cites almost entirely info from him and multiple links that suggest secondary coverage are broken or do not direct to information about Noci specifically. If there were noted impact on the field from at least one or two external sources (e.g. an award or election to an academy, or even announcement for an invited speaking event at a University), I would be leaning keep. Since this has been relisted 2x, I wanted to leave some information I found to help others find info and provide their input. I think the only two WP:NPROF criteria are a combo of C1 and C4, or C7. For C1, Google Scholar citations are okay, but hard to judge based on numbers alone. Looking at Scopus gives a slightly less notable view looking at FWCI for Author Position box (1=average amount of citations in field) and in the Impact tab. He is a middle author in his most cited article. I can't find scholarly reviews that support a large impact in the field though, other than writing about online journalism earlier than most. For C4, I couldn't find anything super directly showing use of publications in courses or other info, but I think something like that would be . For books, two of the highest from WorldCat shows this book at 43 libraries and this one at 24. I just am not seeing enough independent writings or reviews/scholarly works citing Noci's work as highly impactful in the field. For C7, I did not find anything on his contributions as a commenter on radio/news shows, however this could be to do with my lack of Spanish and related language abilities. Cyanochic (talk) 01:33, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment leaning keep. Far from my expertise and the language barrier is a barrier, but the GS citations[1] look quite healthy to me. Highest citns 794,585,315 with four more papers >200 and a further seven with >=100 citations. The subject is first author on the highest-cited item. If he mainly publishes in Spanish then that might impact citations too. Uhooep: Do you have any more specific concerns? Espresso Addict (talk) 02:47, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at edit history, this was translated from Spanish wiki, and went via AfC where it was accepted by Asilvering. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:52, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

fwiw, I don't know enough about the field to know what "highly cited" is for this guy in particular, so if you were hoping to get more context, I'll have to disappoint. But between the combination of "not science field" and "not English language", an h-index of 37 seemed really high to me. Well over the "good enough to be worth a full AfD discussion" bar I use when evaluating AfC drafts. -- asilvering (talk) 05:59, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: His contributions to research on journalism seem significant, specifically the fact that some of his work has been adopted(?) in a report from the UCD Centre for Digital Policy. It is hard to recommend keeping this article though considering there are very few sources in the article that could be considered "independent". Recon rabbit 17:16, 28 October 2024 (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.

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 delete‎. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 22:31, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

William Merlin

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

Page originally created as Chip Merlin and deleted pursuant to this discussion back in May. Article recreated by another user as an alternative name William Merlin . Still fails notability. CNMall41 (talk) 18:08, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - After the SOCKs in the original discussion were blocked and page deleted, new user comes to Talk:S/V_Merlin (a yacht owned by the subject of the deleted page) and argued for a new page for him. After being told the subject was not notable, page was recreated under alternative name. Approved through AfC and will ping the reviewer who likely did not see it was previously deleted as it was submitted under alternative name. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:09, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Law. CNMall41 (talk) 18:10, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
pinging previous participants (other than the SOCK participants who are now blocked) @Let'srun:, @IOProfessor:, @Doczilla:, @Anatomyoffear:, @Hydronium Hydroxide:, and @Ca: who reviewed through AfC.--CNMall41 (talk) 18:14, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:45, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I too thought the notability was marginal when I accepted the draft. I have no opinions either way. Ca ^{talk to me!} 22:44, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It happens, not a big deal. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:45, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I have recently undertaken a project to make sure that we have articles on the top 250 largest law firms in the United States, of which we currently have about 200. On the basis of that investigation, I can definitively say that this firm is not even in the top thousand. The firm founded by this individual is not encyclopedically notable, and the individual is somewhat less so. BD2412 T 22:59, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I understand the complex situation I’m navigating, especially given the past involvement of editors who submitted this page. I appreciate your efforts in addressing malicious users and problematic content. However, experiences like this discourage individuals, including myself, from pursuing the article creation process in the future, which I believe is contrary to the platform’s intent. That said, I respect the community’s decision. I had believed the owner of the S/V Merlin met Wikipedia’s notability requirements, but it seems I placed too much emphasis on that belief. CrimsonGrove (talk) 13:26, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment seems like a veiled accusation that my nomination was somehow in bad faith. We are here at this AfD as it was discussed with you after the last deletion that the subject was not notable and yet you pursued the creation of the page anyway.--CNMall41 (talk) 06:37, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your input. I’d like to take this opportunity to clarify my position and some of the facts surrounding this case. First and foremost, my previous comment was not meant to suggest bad faith on anyone’s part. I believe there is room for differing opinions on the notability of William Merlin, and I continue to maintain that the subject has sufficient coverage based on reliable sources, which I’ve presented in the article.

As the creator of the page, I’ve been cautious about my involvement in this discussion. While I’m aware of the guidelines regarding participation in these debates, I felt it was necessary to add my perspective. My goal remains to align with Wikipedia’s policies while presenting a case that I believe holds merit.

I appreciate the ongoing discussion and will continue to monitor the outcome closely. I respect the community’s input, but I do feel that the subject’s contributions are notable and worthy of inclusion. CrimsonGrove (talk) 20:42, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per my !vote at the previous AFD. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 04:02, 12 October 2024 (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.

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. Star Mississippi 13:51, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Denys Myrgorodskyi

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:BIO, WP:SIGCOV. UPE advert. Gas man No indication of significance. Refs are press-release, profiles, passing mentions, interviews and x of y articles scope_creep^Talk 09:52, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Politicians, Law, and Ukraine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No indication of encyclopedic notability. BD2412 T 23:00, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject of the article served as a Member of Parliament in Ukraine (Verkhovna Rada), which qualifies them as notable under NPOL. However, the article also had some not sufficient stuff which has been removed. I suggest keeping it as some sources related to politics should exist (NEXIST). Taking off shortly (talk) 16:26, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: Elected member of national legislature - satisfies WP:NPOL. Obi2canibe (talk) 19:57, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Former People's Deputy of Ukraine. Ceriy (talk) 20:09, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is there evidence for this npol assertion. I don't see mention of being a MP in the article. scope_creep^Talk 22:47, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article is promo. scope_creep^Talk 22:48, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Satisfies WP:POLITICIAN. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:04, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NPOL , Former People's Deputy of Ukraine.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:25, 10 October 2024 (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.

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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Deleting instead of relisting due to the BLP concerns. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 22:30, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hemant Batra

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

This article is heavily refbombed (just to make it difficult to judge the notability). On a closer look, I didn't find any in-depth reference. Due to COI concerns, I don't think it is possible to maintain such articles even if he is weak notable. Most of the references are sponsored and not acceptable per WP:RSNOI. Fails WP:GNG. Gheus (talk) 19:43, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, and India. Shellwood (talk) 19:49, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Original state of the article before my edits. Gheus (talk) 19:51, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Television, Delhi, Haryana, and Punjab. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:47, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 21:23, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm not sure I'd call this promotional as the tags on the article warn. In places, it's the opposite: Batra just wants to be in news by speaking on contentious and critically controversial issues. I haven't investigated the sources but there are evidently some real BLP concerns here. -- asilvering (talk) 18:41, 20 October 2024 (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.

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 merge‎ to Investigations into the Eric Adams administration. Star Mississippi 01:02, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Federal prosecution of Eric Adams

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

This is largely the same as [Investigations into the Eric Adams administration], so one of these pages should really be deleted, or they should be merged. The undeveloped content on this page is merely a "legalise" version of what already exists on the other page. Nmarshall25 (talk) 23:58, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and United States of America. Nmarshall25 (talk) 23:58, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Politics, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:02, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Criminal_investigations_into_the_Eric_Adams_administration: they both really go in one article. They are similar enough. Oaktree b (talk) 00:19, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Criminal_investigations_into_the_Eric_Adams_administration would indeed be the wisest option here. No need for duplication involving this subject. TH1980 (talk) 01:24, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above - seems redundant. That said, in the long term it's likely the best outcome will be to merge most of the "criminal investigations" article into the main Adams article (trimmed) and recreate this one, since it's easily going to be the most substantial. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:31, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose: The indictment and resulting trial (assuming there will be one) is in itself historic and should merit an article under Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The criminal investigations page is a broader view on the topic, and concerns investigations into Adams' staff (for example, ex-NYPD Commissioner Edward Caban) and is not singularly focused unto Adams. The Trump fake electors plot and the prosecutions stemming from said plot underscore and illustrate why this should be a standalone article. If we were to follow what the above users are saying, we should also be discussing merging Donald Trump's Jan 6. case and documents case into the already existing "indictments against Donald Trump" page, or even merging it into "legal affairs of Donald Trump" or into the main Trump page. There are large parallels here. Trump is a former POTUS, while Adams is a sitting mayor of the most populous city of the U.S., elected there by millions of New Yorkers. This should warrant its own article. --WellThisIs TheReaper ^Grim 17:34, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, staying on topic here, the charges filed against Trump in regards to the Jan 6. case and the documents case stemmed from the Smith special counsel investigation, which I'd say is similar to the "Eric Adams administration investigation" page. --WellThisIs TheReaper ^Grim 17:39, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The difference between merging these pages into the indictments against Donald Trump page, and merging these into Trump's main page, is substantial. It wouldn't be appropriate for Trump's page for several reasons including WP:NPOV and WP:SIZERULE (since Trump's page is already very long, and there is enough info about these legal cases for them to stand alone as their own articles, or even under a "indictments" article). It might be appropriate to merge the various indictments into the indictments against Donald Trump if these indictments are, themselves, better covered under these pages. These indictments all seem to have significant enough amounts of detail to warrant their own articles, rather than a single "indictments" article.

By contrast, the article about Adams's federal indictment seems to be duplicating info found in the Investigations into the Eric Adams administration page. In fact, the Adams federal indictment page is empty except for the lead. – Epicgenius (talk) 19:51, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That can be fixed, provided someone has the time and resources necessary to work on and build out the page. --WellThisIs TheReaper ^Grim 20:51, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it can be fixed. However, until that happens, one option is to merge the article, without any prejudice against splitting it back out at a later date. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:56, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Investigations into the Eric Adams administration per above. I do not see the need to have two separate articles on the topic, which could really be one article per WP:NOPAGE. – Epicgenius (talk) 18:31, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge — Per Weiss special counsel investigation. Articles about investigations can sustain prosecutions. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 17:07, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I could argue the same for, say, the Smith special counsel investigation or the Mueller special counsel investigation (in regards to United States v. Flynn). --WellThisIs TheReaper ^Grim 03:06, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above Andre🚐 01:19, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm leaning on keep, since this is a specific investigation as opposed to broader set of investigations surrounding Adams. I like if some of the stuff in Investigations into the Eric Adams administration to be moved into this article, primarily the section on 'Responses to the indictment', but also the indictment itself. This is one is a big deal worthy of its own article, and I think the other one would deliver information on the three (or how ever many else) other investigations. SWinxy (talk) 02:29, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is potentially notable and a historic case, but as an elections officer for the City, I’m not !voting. Bearian (talk) 09:29, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Investigations into the Eric Adams administration, per rationale of other merge !voters above. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 16:15, 11 October 2024 (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.

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 redirect‎ to Vértice 360. Daniel (talk) 22:49, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pablo Pereiro Lage

AfDs for this article:

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

This article -- a biography of a businessman who fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO -- has now been twice recreated. (Its first creation was by a now-indeffed editor; its second creation after a PROD was by the current page creator, who requested speedy deletion under G7 after I nominated it for deletion.) The sources are all WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS in the context of his company or WP:PRIMARYSOURCES; there's no WP:SIGCOV in reliable, independent sources. This version includes a claim in the infobox that he was a member of the Spanish Congress of Deputies. Interestingly, none of the sources verify that, and he does not appear in Wikipedia's list of members of the 12th_Congress_of_Deputies. To combination of his names appears on the Congress's website, nor do any other links on on the web confirm this statement. Even Pereiro Lage's own webpage makes no reference to being a deputy. (If anyone can provide reliable source evidence that he was indeed a member of the Deputies I will withdraw this nomination under WP:NPOL. Until then, there's still no evidence of notability.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:58, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Spain. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:58, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:19, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak delete~~ or simply repurpose the section "Squirrel Capital" into Vértice 360 or Squirrel Media, as the distribution arm is arguably notable (it could be perhaps more informative if it were structured in terms of the history of Vértice 360 and its predecessors, and not in terms of the history of Squirrel Capital, though). The deputy thing seems to be a hoax.--Asqueladd (talk) 07:00, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, if either of those pages existed I’d have suggested that. But we have no valid redirect/merge target. Dclemens1971 (talk) 11:09, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dclemens1971: I did just create a stub for Vértice 360. So redirect to Vértice 360.--Asqueladd (talk) 16:15, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have suggested deletion but since an article about the company has been created, a Redirect to Vértice 360 appears to be the merciful choice. -The Gnome 15:05, 8 October 2024

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.

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 redirect‎ to Red Hill water crisis. This WP:ATD appears to satisfy the draftify !voters, and no delete !votes have argued that the full page history needs deleting, so I hope they'll also be satisfied with a redirect. asilvering (talk) 04:37, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kristina Baehr

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

Fails WP BIO; depth ot the sources is not enough for proving the notability; general notability fails here; dependent or primary sources do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject. A person is presumed to be notable if they have received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Notability criteria may need to be met for a person to be included in a stand-alone list. This page falls beyond that primary criterion. Shinsi Bohansetr (talk) 06:57, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shinsi Bohansetr (talk) 06:57, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There are 1.3 million attorneys in the US. I don't see any justification for why Kristina Baehr meets Wikipedia standards for notability. ScienceFlyer (talk) 08:18, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Law, and Texas. Shellwood (talk) 12:41, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep.~~ Meets WP:GNG, WP:BASIC with WP:SIGCOV in Law.com, CNBC and KXAN Austin. See source table below.Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:09, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One issue is that the CNBC and KXAN articles perpetuate misinformation and are not reliable medical sources. The concept of airborne toxic mold is long-discredited. ScienceFlyer (talk) 17:07, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We're not relying on them for claims about mold and the article has been edited (by you) to include appropriate information that balances claims made by the subject. We're asking if they are generally reliable sources that provide significant coverage of the subject. They are and they do. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:06, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Reliable?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table: prepared by User:Dclemens1971
Law.com, https://www.law.com/texaslawyer/2023/08/18/3-8m-texas-verdict-lawyer-leaves-intellectual-property-practice-for-toxic-torts/?slreturn=2024100483307	See RSN discussions here, here	✔ Yes
CNBC, https://www.cnbc.com/2021/12/15/what-homeowners-need-to-know-about-toxic-mold-exposure.html		✔ Yes
KXAN, https://www.kxan.com/news/local/austin/how-toxic-mold-cost-one-austin-family-their-home-health/	Major local news station	✔ Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

~~Keep~~: Article has sources and the person is notable. Dealing with articles about lawyers is always a little tricky. Dr vulpes (Talk) 17:15, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify as per Dclemens1971 looks like the best way forward with this article. Dr vulpes (Talk) 04:44, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dclemens1971 and Dr vulpes. Sourcing is sufficient per WP:GNG. Sal2100 (talk) 18:41, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP BISHOPS is not an official Wikipedia policy. Shinsi Bohansetr (talk) 11:23, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Who said anything about BISHOPS here? Dclemens1971 (talk) 11:51, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to [Red Hill water crisis] ~~Delete~~ I agree with the source assessment of @Dclemens1971 as far as it goes, but I think this is a case of BLP1E - she got coverage in context of her toxic mold case and it wasn't continuing coverage. The Red Hill litigation could be independently notable but I don't see significant coverage that highlights her role. Note that I can't access the Texas Lawyer article.
As Dr Vulpes says lawyer bios can be tricky, and I'm open to other views, but this one seems to fall some ways below the line and looks more like vanity than notability. Oblivy (talk) 03:25, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Oblivy Several reliable sources (see CBS, KITV, Military.com, Reuters others) describe Baehr's role as lead counsel in the Red Hill litigation. These sources aren't SIGCOV of her, and so don't contribute to GNG, but given the standalone notability of the Red Hill water crisis I think they do take this beyond a case of WP:BLP1E. Dclemens1971 (talk) 11:06, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate you tracking down the sources, but my point stands. Red Hill has its own article. She doesn't inherit its notability.

CBS and military.com quote her but don't add anything about her except that she's the counsel. Reuters is even briefer.
KITV doesn't mention her

Oblivy (talk) 11:58, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I didn't make myself clear. I didn't say she inherits notability from Red Hill. I'm saying that the sources in the assessment above show a GNG pass, and that her involvement in Red Hill (additional sources, not in article, here: Stars and Stripes, Honolulu Civil Beat, Hawaii News Now, KITV, Honolulu Star-Advertiser, KHON) demonstrates that she is not only notable for the mold-related case. If we had just the Red Hill case to go on, I'd agree with you that it's not enough SIGCOV. But we have SIGCOV in reliable sources for the mold-related lawsuit, plus solid reliable-source coverage for another case, and that takes us beyond BLP1E. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:29, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think what you are making is an inherited argument. She is mentioned as the lawyer for the Red Hill case, and nothing in the sources you cited is about her separate from her role in that case. Her role can be discussed at that page. Again, I truly respect your attempt to find sources, but I'm confident in my view. Oblivy (talk) 01:00, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I highly doubt the quality of the source assessment. For example, the CNBC piece is full of citations and formulations like: "Kristina said," "Baehrs said," and "someone else said....

Here is some random part from the text: And that house, Kristina Baehr said, was slowly killing them. The family abandoned it and everything inside to escape the mold. All of their clothing, toys and personal belongings — even the family Bible — are a total loss. They also remain on a strict regimen of medications and therapies to detoxify their bodies.

On the financial side, the mold nightmare has wiped out the family’s savings, Evan Baehr said. He estimated they’ve spent more than a million dollars on demolition, repair and reconstruction, along with relocation costs, medical copays and out-of-pocket treatment expenses.

“You’ve done everything that you can to prepare to take care of your family financially — and then suddenly a year later, and it’s all gone,” said he Baehr.

The family has filed litigation against the companies that designed and constructed their home as they look to recoup their losses. Kristina said it’s been a long and arduous legal process, but she believes it will be worth it.

“I’m going to go to the ends of the earth and back to get recovery so that our kids can be safe going forward and so that we can rebuild their lives and have the resources to provide for their medical care,” Kristina Baehr said.--Shinsi Bohansetr (talk) 07:25, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 12:02, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Routine, non-notable law career. "Opening a boutique law firm in 2021" suggests this is promo. Sources are reading like an extended CV. Oaktree b (talk) 15:52, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The sources in the table above talk about her and the family being exposed to toxic mould, not about her law career. Being exposed to mould doesn't make you notable. Oaktree b (talk) 15:54, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There appears to be a concerted effort to protect this article, but per the comment above and nomination, she fails WP:GNG by a substantial margin. Go4thProsper (talk) 15:14, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. Clearly I have not been sufficiently persuasive. However, I think there’s a reasonable chance that additional SIGCOV could result in the near future depending on the outcome of the Red Hill litigation. It may have just been WP:TOOSOON. I’d ask participants here to extend the courtesy of supporting draftificaton to see if more sources that meet the community’s expectations emerge. (I would certainly commit not to move thus back to mainspace without additional future SIGCOV added.) Thanks! Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:55, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
May I recommend a different WP:ATD, that this be redirected to Red Hill water crisis? Similar to draftification insofar as the history and text would be preserved, but without the 6-month countdown to deletion. @Dr vulpes I saw you changed your vote to draftify, and would ask you to consider doing the same. Oblivy (talk) 05:43, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would be ok with that but I would want to hear what @Dclemens1971 thinks first. They have a pretty good grasp on this stuff and it was their mention of sending to draft that made me even think about that path. Dr vulpes (Talk) 06:04, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the "delete" !voters seemed unusually hostile to this topic being in mainspace, which is why I suggested draftification as a preferred alternative. If redirection is acceptable that's fine by me too. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:59, 17 October 2024 (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.

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 no consensus‎. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:06, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18 (British Board of Film Classification)

AfDs for this article:

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

Article appears to lack standalone notability, and much of it is unsourced and may be WP:OR. What references there are do not establish WP:SIGCOV:
1 is just a list of the BBFC's ratings.
2 is primary.
3 comes the closest to SIGCOV, but is mostly about 9 Songs as a case study for general film censorship in the UK, and only briefly mentions the 18 rating.
4 just links to the Channel 4 website. Probably a dead link.
5 is WP:USERG and essentially just a list.
6 covers a completely different rating system and never mentions the BBFC, or Cannibal Holocaust, as it is claimed to. I have no idea why this is cited, and it might just be a mistake.
7-9 are primary.
The external link is just describing the rating, and BFI has pages that go into similar detail about the other ratings.
Google Scholar lists many articles that briefly refer to the 18 rating, but none that focus substantially on it. [2] This article comes the closest, but is mostly a comparison of British and French rating systems in their entirety, and covers the 15 rating in just as much detail. Google Books and JSTOR similarly list several books/articles that mention the 18 rating, but none that give it substantial focus. All of them focus either on film censorship in the UK, or the BBFC as a whole. Those that do discuss the 18 rating, such as [3], discuss other ratings in similar detail. The 18 rating might be mentioned more often than the others in secondary sources, but this is because it is the rating censored films usually have. The 18 rating itself is never the main topic, and does not have SIGCOV. Discussion of the 18 rating individually, while definitely more than WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs, appears insufficient to establish standalone notability compared to the U-15 ratings.
The BBFC is the only rating system I'm aware of that has individual pages for specific ratings. The standard practice is to include information about ratings on the system's page, as with Pan-European Game Information or Freiwillige Selbstkontrolle der Filmwirtschaft. Ratings from other systems with their own pages tend to be notable due to their rarity, and their articles are usually lists, such as List of NC-17 rated films or List of AO-rated video games. The BBFC 18 rating is not particularly rare, so it does not meet what appear to be the criteria for a standalone page (a list would be far too long). Most of the content of this article is already covered in British Board of Film Classification, History of British film certificates, and Film censorship in the United Kingdom. There is already ample information here on the 18 rating, and this article should redirect to British Board of Film Classification#Current certificates. Masskito (talk) 21:21, 26 September 2024‎ (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Law, and United Kingdom. Skynxnex (talk) 00:22, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: as a detailed article, whose sourcing can be improved, just like R18. But significant coverage in reliable sources warrants a standalone page. Civil Liberties and Human Right, p. 560 (Fenwick, H. (2009). Civil Liberties and Human Rights. Taylor & Francis); Smartt, U. (2017). Media & Entertainment Law Taylor & Francis; Controversial Images: Media Representations on the Edge (2012). Palgrave Macmillan, and so on, -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:09, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fenwick does discuss the 18 rating in some detail, but this is only a small part of a broader discussion of the BBFC and film censorship in the UK, and this book also substantially refers to censorship within other ratings, e.g. Fellowship of the Ring being passed PG. The main topic is never the 18 rating, it's film censorship, and the 18 rating is only mentioned more because it's the rating censored films usually have.
Smartt only provides a general overview of the BBFC, and barely mentions the 18 rating at all. Yes, there is a section on film censorship, which, of course, refers mostly to 18-rated films, but even this section has few mentions of the 18 rating. Again, the 18 rating is only tangentially discussed.
Lockyer et al. do discuss the 18 rating in detail, but, again, the main focus is on film censorship in the UK. The points made in these articles are equally relevant to the Film censorship in the United Kingdom article. Individual articles on ratings like these aren't standard on Wikipedia, and, to my knowledge, similar articles in the past have been merged, such as TV-MA. I see no reason for this article not to also be redirected (to British Board of Film Classification) or merged (to Film censorship in the United Kingdom). I don't see this article ever being more than a description of the rating with content that could easily be merged elsewhere, even if it is properly referenced. Masskito (talk) 19:08, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 18:17, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Satisfies GNG. Obviously this has massive coverage in books and periodicals, which comes up immediately on even the most cursory search. I could point, for example, to this discussion of changes to the scope of the classification: [4] [5] [6]. James500 (talk) 15:47, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These are all just about the BBFC generally, and also discuss other ratings in similar detail. These aren't SIGCOV of the 18 rating as a standalone topic. Masskito (talk) 19:14, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I think it would be helpful for the nominator to review the sources brough to this discussion and offer feedback on them.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:40, 10 October 2024 (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.