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 delete‎. Closing per WP:SNOW (and the only conceivable merge/redirect target is currently oversighted and blacklocked -- we are in some truly grim days of the WWW). jp×g 🗯️ 14:29, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Navin Chawla (judge)

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

No WP:SIGCOV for the subject. In this refbombed blp, leaving aside the primary sources [1],[2] all the rest are trivial mentions.

In the discussion with one of the user on the talk page of the article, ~~they~~ I argue that

1) Verbatim quotations reproduced without any independent commentary from the reliable source, does not qualify sigcov criteria.

2) ~~They~~ I also argue that the SNG WP:JUDGE which presumes notability is not a valid argument to make, when the guideline says meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included. Also, the presumption does not hold if challenged by other editor. The guideline says topics which pass an SNG are presumed to merit an article, though articles which pass an SNG or the GNG may still be deleted or merged into another article, especially if adequate sourcing or significant coverage cannot be found, or if the topic is not suitable for an encyclopedia

Imo, the only contention that needs resolving is whether verbatim quotations from the article's subject qualify as sigcov. If they do, we could have perhaps an

both of which wouldn't qualify WP:NLIST. Judges in India usually maintain a low-profile and media attention that the article's subject has received (partly due to wikipedia's circular reporting in Asian News International vs. Wikimedia Foundation) is not an attention-seeking behaviour as per WP:LPI. — hako9 (talk) 13:51, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Delhi. — hako9 (talk) 13:51, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is no coverage about the judge himself, only cases he has covered. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:46, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Bus driver drive busses. Judges judge cases. Without secondary coverage, neither is inherently notable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:56, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If we had a large number of articles about a bus driver's driving they would be notable... We also seem to have secondary coverage (that is we have sources talking about what other sources said about the subject) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:24, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I think we're over the WP:GNG line into notability... Extended coverage of their legal opinions are as much significant coverage as extended discussions of anyone elses opinions. They don't somehow not count because the subject is a judge, there is no negative part of that notability standard. I don't buy the WP:LPI argument, they don't appear to meet the criteria as laid out. I would also note that the article currently only incorporates english language sources, likely there is coverage in other languages which can still be presumed to exist. I would also note that OP's opening statement is more than a little unorthodox, "Imo, the only contention that needs resolving is whether verbatim quotations from the article's subject qualify as sigcov" is just plain misleading because thats just not an accurate description of the coverage we have and you can't misrepresent the views of others like that (I think I'm the user they're trying to call out, but I didn't argue either of those things they're red herring). Hako9 also chose not to notify the other users they mentioned in the OP of this discussion. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:24, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Extended coverage of their legal opinions are as much significant coverage as extended discussions of anyone elses opinions what does extended coverage mean for you? Verbatim reproduction of oral arguments made by a judge during a court proceeding is the job of a court stenographer. The secondary reliable sources that have reproduced the quotes have not published their articles with the judge in mind. They published those because they are following the case. And once again try to not make ridiculous arguments like Wikipedia:But there must be sources!, and waste other editors' time. You insert yourself in discussions about topics which are out of your depth, and you try to make a lazy argument that there are sources but I just can't find them. Doesn't work. And explain how I misrepresented your views. — hako9 (talk) 16:59, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The sources go well beyond just verbatim reproduction of oral arguments made by a judge during a court proceeding, they also talk about the impact of the judge's rulings and have third parties who offer their opinion on the arguments and/or their impact. It misrepresents my arguments because I neither argue that verbatim quotations reproduced without any independent commentary from the reliable source, does qualify sigcov criteria or that the SNG WP:JUDGE which presumes notability is a valid argument to make Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:08, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The sources go well beyond just verbatim reproduction of oral arguments made by a judge during a court proceeding, they also talk about the impact of the judge's rulings and have third parties who offer their opinion on the arguments and/or their impact They don't. — hako9 (talk) 17:19, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:51, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Greco, Albert (2024). "The Impact of Legal, Intellectual Property, and Copyright Infringement Issues: 2000–2022". The Strategic Marketing of Science, Technology, and Medical Journals. Palgrave Macmillan. (wplibrary) Blocking Sci-Hub
"Delhi HC asks Google, X to remove posts against Om Birla's daughter". The Indian Express. July 24, 2024.
"Shankaracharya sues Govindananda Saraswati for calling him 'fake baba'; Delhi HC responds". Hindustan Times. August 13, 2024.

fiveby(zero) 17:11, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reproducing the relevant bit However, by 2021, international concerns about Sci-Hub’s illegal activities became more intense, including a major litigation against Sci Hub in India, initiated by ACS, Elsevier, and Wiley, which triggered Sci-Hub to stop illegal downloads onto the Sci-Hub website.52 While the U.S. lawsuits posed some threats to Sci-Hub’s reputation, no financial payments were ever made by Sci-Hub to any of the plaintiffs. However, the litigation in India posed an exceptionally serious threat to Sci-Hub; and, for the first time, Sci-Hub decided to mount a serious defense before the Delhi High Court’s Justice Navin Chawla. Sci-Hub was concerned that its services could be blocked in India.53 This prompted Elbakyan to submit a written appeal to the High Court. A number of prominent Indian scholars supported keeping Sci-Hub on line; and they insisted that the loss of Sci-Hub would pose a serious burden on academics and students since blocking Sci-Hub would have a dramatic impact on scholar ship and research.54 However, Justice Chawla pointed out that Elbakyan’s written appeal to the High Court indicated clearly that Sci-Hub had “unequivocally admitted” to copyright infringement; and the Court ruled against Sci-Hub and the other defendants. Therefore, access to Sci-Hub in India was blocked.

Is this significant coverage of Chawla, according to you? I don't think so. Quite noteworthy for an article on the Sci-Hub case though. — hako9 (talk) 17:24, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is similar to the run of the mill coverage in the dozen other sources cited. — hako9 (talk) 17:28, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With ATG right now, but looking. Your nomination is offensive. It's not an uncontrollable itch. fiveby(zero) 17:34, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could be my shitty sense of humor. — hako9 (talk) 17:42, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this what can one learn about Judge Chawla from any of these articles, except a) He heard X case b) He made Y decision. — hako9 (talk) 17:46, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That it? WP cant inform anyone with that article is probably true tho. fiveby(zero) 18:20, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is trivia. Not significant coverage. — hako9 (talk) 18:39, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the HT article syndicated from ANI, is another in the long list of sources for which the only use in the context of the article in discussion, is making a list of cases where the subject presided over. So its not sigcov. — hako9 (talk) 18:44, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Liked the quote, it's covered elsewhere. They are political cases and best leads i saw for finding something. Everyone understands the point you keep making. fiveby(zero) 15:04, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been mentioned in Wikipedia:Village pump (WMF)#The Asian News International vs. Wikimedia Foundation situation. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 17:26, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not SIGCOV; Wikipedia's purpose is for noegenesis, not for infantile attempts to pester people you may harbour a dislike towards. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:14, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the uncontrollable itch that one could have when they have shit stuck up in their ass and there's no toilet paper. Is there some reason you're so rude and crude in your nomination? Please reword. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:23, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think hako9 is annoyed because he thinks people are creating Wikipedia articles for the deliberate purpose of antagonizing the judge in the ongoing WMF vs ANI case, even when they aren't justified by sources. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:27, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then he should AGF... It appears that if the judge is notable they became so as a result of the coverage around that case so its a bit of a chicken and egg situation... I would also note that we have hundreds of pages for Indian judges which are less well sourced than this one, Jyoti Singh (judge) for example has almost the exact same experience, rank, and education as Chawla. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:38, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A user as experienced as you should know that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument at AfD. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:43, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did not say it was notable because of that, I noted the apparent state of consensus. Do you have any comment on AGF and the chicken and egg nature of the alledged notability? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:45, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yea we have plenty of articles that need to be trashed. Fortunately, we have a place called afd. — hako9 (talk) 20:48, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for rewording. I appreciate it. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:57, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Per Traumnovelle and ATG. Horse Eye's Back point is persuasive, however coverage thus far were about the cases, not the judge as a person. I would however consider otherwise if there are sources that studied his rulings. – robertsky (talk) 00:32, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - It appears that India's mainstream media — to avoid facing contempt of Court or otherwise — is reluctant to profile Judges; there is nothing even on Judges who have been appointed to the Supreme Court of India. I am sympathetic to HEB's argument but feel that the existing coverage is singularly about the cases, not the Judge. TrangaBellam (talk) 04:19, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sources either mention him in passing or quote his rulings; neither qualifies as SIGCOV. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:11, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mike Christie, what would you consider significant coverage for a judge? Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 13:23, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Articles in reliable sources that focused either on the judge himself -- his biography, education, and so on -- or his rulings as a whole, characterizing his judgements in some way. Those would be treating him as the subject of the source. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:03, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Saying that they need to be treated as the subject of the source seems to go beyond the guideline which says that "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." although I respect that where that line actually falls is a matter of personal judgement. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:22, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're right of course, and in fact I had a slightly longer post originally, with parentheticals "(or at least parts of sources)" to make the point that I don't think that standard is met. I trimmed it thinking I was being unnecessarily wordy. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:19, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This page is created on 15-10-2021 [3] appears to be a reaction to recent events that have angered judges and may be related to a pending legal case. The sources cited on the page are outdated, suggesting that the page may have been created earlier but only published now. This timing raises concerns about its potential impact on the legal proceedings and violates Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons (WP:BLP). — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZandraBlaese (talk • contribs) 10:32, 20 October 2024 (UTC) — ZandraBlaese (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
15-10-2021, 2024 you meant? – robertsky (talk) 12:29, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per ATG and TrangaBellam. One would have thought there would be something here for this level tho. fiveby(zero) 15:04, 20 October 2024 (UTC) Keep, since i guess we're abandoning principles here. fiveby(zero) 05:53, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's easy to post anonymously (we hope) on the internet and praise freedom, but external events can have serious consequences for some and removing public information about contributors for a period is probably a wise procedure. The article and talk page have been deleted and all edits, edit summaries, and user names have been suppressed so even administrators are unable to view them. Whether or not we agree with that action, a keep vote based on it is not valid. Johnuniq (talk) 07:23, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not invalid, it's irrelevant. Not the closer's or the communities anymore (which would have been the right one). So why do you care how i vote? fiveby(zero) 08:42, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Delhi High Court, where the subject is mentioned, per WP:ATD. I find this to be a close case, as WP:JUDGE would apply if this was a national or state-level high court, and the court is itself a constitutional body in its country. However, I think this is more akin to an intermediate appellate court due to the Supreme Court of India having appellate jurisdiction over all cases decided by this court. BD2412 T 01:36, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, so it's not a state, it's a Union territory. Live and learn. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:30, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SCI has appellate jurisdiction over all state-level High Courts in India. That's a nonsensical reason. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:02, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Reliable sources mention the judge in connection with legal cases. Even if a case satisfies WP:N, that is not inherited by the person who happens to be judging the case. Johnuniq (talk) 02:41, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Current events may result in more significant coverage down the line, but it's not there yet. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 07:18, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: The role of a judge is inherently tied to the cases they preside over and the judgments they deliver. And the notability guideline on SIGCOV does not mention that the coverage must focus on personal life or background, so coverage of rulings and judgments should be equally valid. Per Rjjiii’s comment, I believe we will have more coverage once the case is over. With this in mind, would those supporting deletion consider switching to draftify instead? Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 08:29, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging AndyTheGrump, Hemiauchenia, Traumnovelle, Hako9, Robertsky, TrangaBellam, Mike Christie, ZandraBlaese, BD2412, Johnuniq, Rjjiii, GrabUp. Kindly ignore the ping if you are not interested in changing your stance. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 08:39, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Given the circumstances I think deletion is preferable. Undeletion can always be requested later, you could also make a copy of it in a text file too. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:41, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no objection to draftification, but the link should still be a redirect, as a valid redirect target clearly exists. BD2412 T 12:01, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I was also considering writing this article a few days ago, but while searching for SIGCOV sources, I only found coverage related to cases that are not truly SIGCOV. I would have created it as a pass under WP:JUDGE if the subject were a Chief Justice of that court. However, the current sourcing does not establish notability; the subject fails to meet WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. GrabUp - Talk 08:30, 21 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} 21:30, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Palh

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

There is insufficient in-depth coverage of this individual to meet the criteria outlined in WP:GNG. This individual has never won a provincial or national election. The page's author holds the view that election candidates are inherently notable, regardless of whether they win. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 23:12, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Law, Politics, and Pakistan. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 23:12, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All the sources are secondary as per WP:GNG, the article is start class and is barely in-depth after the changes, are you still arguing for it to be deleted despite it no longer including primary sources and only containing news reports as sources? Also he isn’t just a candidate, he is the General Secretary of Pakistan’s largest political party and the CEO of a human rights organization. Titan2456 (talk) 00:14, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He is the provincial general secretary of his political party, nominated by his colleague Asad Umar. It raises the question: how many provincial general secretaries of any Pakistani political party, who have never been elected to public office, currently have Wikipedia articles? Although, this point may not hold much significance. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 00:21, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Article does not have significant coverage to meet WP:GNG even though they are elected as local official

Per this clause under Notability for politician and judges "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline." Tesleemah (talk) 06:33, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: While I have concerns that the nominator is a POV pusher and has a biased agenda, is doing their best to attack anything related to Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf. However, I have to agree with their nomination in this case, as this BLP doesn't meet NPOLITICIAN and clearly doesn't come close to passing the GNG, either. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 06:42, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tesleemah He has never been elected to a local office either, so you might want to reconsider and change your vote to “Delete”. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 11:46, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

According to the article, he is the General Secretary of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI)'s Sindh chapter. I'm still keeping my vote as soft/weak delete Tesleemah (talk) 13:00, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tesleemah Being the general secretary of a political party is not considered a local elected office. When WP:NPOL refers to local elected office, it means positions like mayor or city council member. Furthermore, even as general secretary, he was appointed by another party official, not elected. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 13:14, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:Fail GNG--Gul Butt (talk) 22:44, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As per nom. Wikibear47 (talk) 14:07, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The subject fails N:POL Ibjaja055 (talk) 20:21, 21 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. This is an unsatisfactory discussion. People merely assert that the subject is or is not notable, or refer to WP:POLITICIAN which clearly does not apply to party offices. All of this is beside the point. The only relevant arguments are those discussing reliable independent sources that cover the subject in depth, as required per WP:GNG. But almost nobody here attempted to do so. We have one dump of hyperlinks, but they remained undiscussed and appear to be of questionable value. This needs a new discussion focused on the sources. Sandstein 09:44, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Najma Thabsheera

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

Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG TheWikiholic (talk) 14:16, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. TheWikiholic (talk) 14:16, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, Law, and Kerala. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:20, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:GNG Pass , has reliable sources, she is a national level women leader - Spworld2 (talk) 11:48, 18 October 2024 (UTC)— Note to closing admin: Spworld2 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]

The subject’s role as the national vice president of a state-level political party’s youth wing does not automatically meet the notability guidelines under WP:POL, regardless of gender. Furthermore, the available coverage primarily focuses on routine updates about her new positions within the party, which is typical for politicians and thus does not fulfill the criteria for WP:GNG. TheWikiholic (talk) 18:12, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a youth movement of a single party in a state but exists in more than one state [4][5] . Spworld2 (talk) 04:52, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 18:58, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not pass WP:NPOL. Mccapra (talk) 21:37, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can be considered in WP:GNG category, Spworld2 (talk) 06:00, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:GNG has abundant references proving it This article is a national level office older. Former office holder of Women's Youth Party, she was a former office holder at the national level of an important student movement in Kerala. All these can be considered in the WP:POLITICIAN category as a reference basis. Reference: [6] (The New Indian Express), [7] (Mathrubhumi), [8]] (The New Indian Express)

, [9] (Malayala Manorama). A article who is popular in Kerala as a Muslim woman has won the award. Also a well-known Muslim feminist in Kerala [10] [11][12]. She can be considered as an Advocate/Lawyer, she is one of the women lawyers in Kerala High Court [13] Office holder at Municipality / Taluk level [14] Reference [15] , [16] (The Hindu) and she can be considered Women in positions of power [17] [18] Influencer (Muslim women political influencer) in Kerala [19] [20] - Spworld2 (talk) 05:52, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: We acknowledge that the subject does not fit within the politician category (WP:NPOL). However, it clearly meets the criteria for the WP:GNG. Jannatulbaqi (talk) 14:41, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not passing WP:NPOL. It’s Prima facie about an activist in her party with literally thousands of other people. Being the woman’s chair of a youth organization is the picture of up and coming political volunteer. Bearian (talk) 16:02, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How did one in ten thousand become an office holder at the national level? There is a source for that, there is evidence of people voting and winning at the municipality/taluk level, so how can you be one in 10,000 as you say? My little doubt Spworld2 (talk) 05:28, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:Non notable activist who fails NPOL and GNG.202.83.51.246 (talk) 17:28, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The user with the IP address (202.83.51.246) discussed above is a first time wikipedia editor, and like other experience users, feels like WP:SOCK----- Spworld2 (talk) 10:04, 25 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!} 19:04, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Meets WP:GNG--Irshadpp (talk) 07:08, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This article contains ample references that satisfy the criteria outlined in WP:GNG. It may also be considered under the WP:POLITICIAN category based on the sources provided.--Mims Mentor (talk) 17:41, 1 November 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. ✗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[21] 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 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.