Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Law

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:

1. 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.
2. 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

watch

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

See also: Crime-related deletions.

Law

Tiger Team (TV series)

Tiger Team (TV series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG DonaldD23 talk to me 17:03, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Law, and United States of America. DonaldD23 talk to me 17:03, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

*Delete as it clearly fails GNG and lacks notability. — Mister Banker (talk) 18:15, 9 November 2024 (UTC) Strike SockPuppet vote DonaldD23 talk to me 01:07, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete A burn-off pilot never really meant to be aired; only did so for tax benefits (years before David Zazlav would take too much advantage of it). Nate • (chatter) 22:05, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
• Keep: Added ref to book with significant coverage, also see https://www.theregister.com/2007/12/19/tiger_team/ A redirect might be considered too. Mushy Yank (talk) 21:02, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

  @Donaldd23 pinging you to ask you what you think of the 2 sources and/or a redirect. Best, Mushy Yank (talk) 21:03, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

  I think the book reference is good, but the register one is saying the page does not exist. Is there a better link to evaluate the source? Thanks! DonaldD23 talk to me 21:54, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

@Donaldd23 My bad! I did not leave any space between the link and the next sentence. It should work now. Thanks.Mushy Yank (talk) 22:04, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Seems to be just a blurb about it upcoming, nothing substantial. But if others think it is enough for notability I won't dispute. DonaldD23 talk to me 00:05, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

One can add https://www.wired.com/2007/12/hackers-on-cour/ mentions in https://www.darkreading.com/perimeter/tiger-team-member-attacks-developers-not-apps https://www.reuters.com/article/lifestyle/court-tv-getting-makeover-in-08-idUSN14211084/ (repeated here https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/court-tv-plans-rebrand-2008-131955/ also in Variety) ; significant mention in Disguise (see excerpt here: https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/computer-science/unauthorized-personnel). Fwiw, the short series is listed on the page about Court TV (a natural redirect if this is all judged insufficient). Mushy Yank (talk) 00:30, 11 November 2024 (UTC)@Donaldd23

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. (non-admin closure) Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:37, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Kif Augustine-Adams

Kif Augustine-Adams (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

None of the eight criteria at WP:NPROF applies to Augustine-Adams. It is true that she holds a named chair, but in my view she still does not satisfy criterion #5 because the BYU Law School is not an elite school that has the requisite "reputation for excellence and selectivity", as the specific notes say, like a Harvard or Yale would.  White Whirlwind  15:24, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 November 6. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:37, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Women. Shellwood (talk) 16:27, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Massachusetts, Utah, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:36, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
• Keep I think limiting notability of named professors to schools in the top ten is stretching the requirement for "excellence or selectivity". BYU Law School is ranked 28 in US News & World Report, that is enough of an indication of selectivity. DaffodilOcean (talk) 22:42, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
• Keep. Named professors at major US schools are almost always considered notable per C5. JoelleJay (talk) 19:10, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
• Keep - named professor at top 40 law school, almost stereotypically stellar cv. Easily passes the PROF test and my standards for lawyers. Bearian (talk) 22:26, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
• Comment. GS citation profile [1] is a bit thin with top citations 64, 62, 52, 41, 24 and an h-index of 12, so unless I'm missing something obvious we're resting on the named chair alone here? Also the profile link to BYU law school given in the article no longer works, it looks to be here now: [2] (and there might be some copying concerns). Espresso Addict (talk) 06:00, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Mike Antunovic

Mike Antunovic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Article has been tagged for notability since 2012. This lawyer has participated in a couple of notable trials, but that does not make the subject himself notable per se. Muzilon (talk) 09:23, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, and New Zealand. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:18, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
• Weak Delete No significant coverage. My own searches yield nothing other than discussions of his involvement in cases and some interviews. Barring something extraordinary about his representation he doesn't inherit notability from the cases. Oblivy (talk) 11:51, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 11:02, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

• Weak keep as I had a dig around and found some solid coverage. In 1999, he was the subject of a profile piece in the Evening Post titled "The Defense", related to his defence of Scott Watson. He also received some coverage when he criticised the courts for remaining open to jury trials during covid. I also found an example of himself—rather than his client—making headlines for his comments made in court. There are articles about his work where his involvement is not merely a trivial mention, for example in this article he makes extensive comments about a breach of name suppression orders. In another article from 2011 he comments on the role of the legal aid system as an expert, and is described as a "senior criminal lawyer [...] well-known for his work on high-profile murder cases". David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 22:49, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

• I applaud the effort seeking out sources which might support a keep, but this falls under what I described above with him getting discussed for his involvement in cases. The 1999 article is one piece of significant coverage. The Covid protest stuff is slightly less clear but I see it as him generating coverage about a single event. Based on this, particularly the 1999 article, I'm not inclined to change my vote but perhaps I'm at weak delete (if there is such a thing). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oblivy (talk • contribs) 14:09, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

References

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 09:58, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete since, despite the admirable efforts at discovery, subject remains bereft of sources confirming beyond doubt its notability. -The Gnome (talk) 14:37, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Balkees Jarrah

Balkees Jarrah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

BLP of a human rights lawyer sourced mainly to statements she has made, comments she has offered and interviews she has recorded. Lacks independent in-depth coverage. Mccapra (talk) 05:08, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Law, and Syria. Mccapra (talk) 05:08, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

• Keep - I respectfully disagree. This individual has received significant independent coverage, in my view. Firecat93 (talk) 15:03, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete - these is literally zero coverage in reliable sources about her. Comments from the peanut gallery and advocacy outside of a courtroom are not significant coverage of a BLP. Passing mentions aren’t either. Bearian (talk) 09:47, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:46, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

John C. Catlin

John C. Catlin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

WP:ROTM lawyer, and no-one knows what a "Blacksmith Mayor" is. This seems to be a soubriquet bestowed upon him by the creating editor, who created one or more walled gardens in and around Carmel-by-the-Sea, with distinctly useless hyperlocal referencing. WP:NOTINHERITED applies - look at the list of people he knew! Fails WP:V, fails WP:BIO, fails WP:NPOLITICIAN, fails WP:GNG. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 10:54, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Politicians, and California. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 10:54, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
• Delete this article on this former mayor and lawyer that is one of a series of articles written with a promotional tone of boosterism. The boosterism resulted in what some have called a "walled garden" surrounding the town and its inhabitants that connect the editor's articles with one another, usually through a hub like Timeline of Carmel-by-the-Sea, California, or Timeline of Carmel-by-the-Sea, California, or the The Carmel Pine Cone. Carmel had a population of around 2,000 when he was in office for two years. He was a run-of-the-mill politician who does not meet WP notability criteria for politicians. As to his title, "Blacksmith Mayor", it's a mystery as mentioned in the nom, and may be a neologism fabricated by the creator. Hyper-local sourcing. Fails WP:NPOLITICIAN, WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Editor Bearian has developed useful standards (not guideline or policy) for determining of attorneys HERE and mayors for HERE. (No ping because I do not want this to be perceived as canvassing.) Netherzone (talk) 14:16, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 14:17, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
• There's a case to be made for GNG, with a three-column feature in the Sacramento Bee and a full-column long story in the Oakland Tribune. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:50, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
• Keep. Someone removed a lot of the content and sources before the article was nominated for AfD. I don't know if they were right or wrong to do so, but it is impossible to evaluate the article without this material, and so I think it should be kept in until someone explains why they though the deleted sources were not acceptable even for non-controversial material. I have restored some of it pending the result of this AfD. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:44, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
• Merge with Carmel-by-the-Sea,_California: especially the part about the Forge (limit merge to a reasonable amount of content) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:04, 29 October 2024 (UTC) I cannot access the new sources but I am sure they are good and therefore remove my !vote. For the sake of transparency, note that I’received a message inviting me to evaluate the new sources.Mushy Yank (talk) 19:44, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
• Keep: The sources listed above in addition to this, this and this appear to be enough for GNG. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 16:04, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 20:50, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:00, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Commotion Ltd v Rutty

Commotion Ltd v Rutty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Failed a PROD per User:A._B.'s prerogative, but as far as I can find, there are still no reliable sources that talk about this case that aren't just restating the facts of the case, and while I'm no lawyer or otherwise have expertise in the matter, those sources look to be mostly regurgitating anything it can get its hands onto rather that "this case and that case are important for xyz reason". No newspapers that I can find reported on the case at the time or since. Also as an aside, the creator of the page for....some reason, decided to have a very odd and irrelevant image for the infobox, but that's fixable in the case that I've overlooked sources that establish this case's nobility. Akaibu (talk) 22:46, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Akaibu (talk) 22:46, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: Google Scholar lists 40+ references to this decision; it set an important precedent apparently. The article does not discuss its importance. I agree that's an odd image. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 23:49, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:09, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: I've added several refs to the article. Google Books shows this case is cited by a number of books. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 00:43, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
• There is a too-long quote. Can I snip it down? Bearian (talk) 01:25, 29 October 2024 (UTC) I cut down on the extraneous matters in the two long quote. I’d love for someone to add in more cases and books that cited this case. Bearian (talk) 01:59, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:45, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 05:20, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

• Keep: The Google Scholar citations above show many articles discussing this case or how it has been used to advance other legal issues, I think it's notable. Coverage shows it's had a lasting impact on the legal world. Oaktree b (talk) 16:26, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

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. In lieu of any more comments, a keep appears to be the consensus. However, better sources have been called for and may need adding to the article. (non-admin closure) Cheerio, Mattdaviesfsic. About me; Talk to me. Farewell fellow editor... 00:45, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Zainal Arifin Mochtar

Zainal Arifin Mochtar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No significant coverage that shows notability. I realize that the sources are non-English but doing my best through Google Translate I think this is likely the best source which looks more like a reprint of a bio. CNMall41 (talk) 07:46, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Law, Politics, and Indonesia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:53, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
• Keep there are some very quirky expressions and stylistic oddities for an english reader in the text of the article, (that is not encyclopediac) despite some off putting aspects that would lend to a sense of promotional - it is (barring some conclusive evidence of copyvio or similar problem) just notable, in the realm of probabilities, but requires quite a lot of editing. JarrahTree 03:08, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, JarrahTree. Which sources would you consider significant coverage to show notability here? I will take a look and withdraw the AfD should they be sufficient. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:02, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

• Keep - I'm seeing the deputy chairman of a sub-ministerial government body, moderator in a Presidential debate, and major interviewee in a viral film. Not necessarily sufficient on their own, but together they definitely support a presumption of notability. Referring to the sources:
  • Kompas is a major Indonesian newspaper, basically the Times of the country. The quoted article is an interview with the subject, which as per the article linked was also in the print edition. I'm also seeing a response to accusations related to the film (Indonesian), discussion of his views on legal issues,
  • Detik is another solid source, and already cited in our article. There are still more sources like his response to accusations of partisanship,
• I'm also seeing a few lower-quality sources (still RSes, but not as established) through a quick Google search.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:22, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Pulled open KompasPedia, and it is published by Kompas. Coverage is sufficient to show GNG, IMO. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:24, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

These are sources I saw but they are not about him. An interview is not independent and the others are him giving an opinion on legal issues. Where is the significant coverage about him?--CNMall41 (talk) 19:33, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is a disagreement over the quality of the sources but I'm not ready to close this as No consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:06, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:41, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.