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

Akhmed Yakoob

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

Fails WP:GNG or WP:NPOL, candidacy doesn't count towards NPOL, by the way, they have to be elected to the office. For GNG, the sources used are routine coverages of the racism incident, etc. No WP:SIGCOV can be identified. One of the BBC source even does not have a byline, while you might thing it's almighty BBC, but sorry, we can not rely on a news piece that lacks a byline, whether from an international news org or a local one. A WP:BEFORE was done and the nature of the sources found there does not help, they either routine coverages or run of the mill. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:33, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Law, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:15, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2024 West Midlands mayoral election as page fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. This page was originally a redirect, and should return to being a redirect. The name is a notable redirect to the events discussed in the mayoral election article, but not as a standalone page. If he'd been elected to office then it would be a different story. This is Paul (talk) 19:17, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retroactive overtime

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

Fails WP:GNG and is only sourced to WP:PRIMARY sources, without any secondary sourcing whatsoever. What's left is original research. It's impossible to even WP:ATD because there is nothing to merge at all, making it surprising how it lasted for so long. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:33, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, and Economics. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:33, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Business. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:42, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Lawrence Schieffelin

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

There is virtually no independent secondary coverage of this individual. The sources in the article (and in the WP:BEFORE search) are primarily primary-source documents, except for a book by one of the subject's family members (who is also the self-declared COI creator of this article and a whole WP:WALLEDGARDEN of articles about his family members). The other book source is published by an imprint of unreliable WP:ARCADIA Press. Without [WP:SIGCOV]] independent, secondary sources, this subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:36, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Law, and New York. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:36, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the only claim to notability I can discern is that he was president of the Board of Aldermen. There are plenty of primary documents that mention him as an alderman. There are some secondary documents that mention him on archive.org, but in the context of geneology of Jacob's family rather than as an alderman. But nothing lengthy that I could find. Note that there is also a different person named Georrge Richard Scheiffelin. Oblivy (talk) 05:25, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jorge Pan

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

There doesn't seem to be significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. toweli (talk) 08:46, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Games, Law, and Argentina. toweli (talk) 08:46, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Montreux Declaration

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

As the arrested people were all released after a few days I cannot see how this is significant enough to deserve an article. As an alternative to deletion as it is so short this unsourced article could be merged into the treaty article. Although there is no Turkish article I think if it was merged enough sources could be found for at least a few sentences. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:41, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Military, and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:41, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah I have now found the Turkish article and linked it Chidgk1 (talk) 17:49, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah the Turkish discussion voted to keep so if properly sourced maybe it should be kept per https://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vikipedi:Silinmeye_aday_sayfalar/103_emekli_amiral_bildirisi ? Chidgk1 (talk) 17:54, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Full disclosure, I wrote the article. I do understand why not being ref'd would be a ref flag for deletion, yes. And thanks for delving in the the Turkish Wikipeda. But hear me out.

It was a somewhat significant event in modern Turkish history, and not a one-day wonder. Ten or fifty or a hundred years from now some non-zero number of people reading Turkish history are going to see it mentioned and want to know more. (And remember, we ought to try to be global and work against (natural) bias against foreign events.)

It doesn't matter if the people were released in a few days. The hearing was publized and acquitals can be notable.

It's short, but reasonable size for an article. We have a lot of articles that short. And it can be expanded somewhat.

Yeah there are no refs and I marked it such so that other editors could add them. There are sources (I didn't make any of the material up). Not adding them was an uncharacteristic lazy lapse on my part, to leave the work to others, I never do that and I don't remember why I did here. And I can see why no refs would be a red flag for the article not being worthwhile. Still, for deletion, it is not supposed to much matter if an article has refs but whether it can have refs with reasonable effort.

A rule of thumb is that if an article meets the WP:GNG that's an indication (not proof, granted) that the article might well be worth keeping. GNG wants in-depth coverage from multiple reliable, neutralish, and reasonably notable sources. Here's a full article from Associated Press, Here's a full article from Bianet, Here's a full article from Hurriyet Daily News. There're more, and that's just the English articles.

Pretty close to case closed I would think?

(Also, a gentle reminder, you are supposed to do WP:BEFORE before nomination, and I guess you didn't cos I found these quickly in Google. I know, I know, many nominators also don't do it, but IMO they really ought to to save us all time and not have worthwhile articles sometimes deleted. I understand, but hopefully a learning experience here?) Herostratus (talk) 18:48, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep: per Herostratus. Notable event with implications spanning a significant time horizon. Plenty of sources exist. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 01:32, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ankit Jain

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

Doesn't meet WP:NPOL as an election candidate, fails WP:NBASIC otherwise. C F A 💬 16:58, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Washington, D.C.. C F A 💬 16:58, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the election is uncontested (Green Party didn't field a nominee) and less than a month away. The position of Shadow Senator is a federal position, equivalent to a senator. There's also a decent amount of coverage already [1][2][3] Microplastic Consumer (talk) 17:10, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not denying they would meet NPOL if elected, but they don't right now. Routine election coverage of candidates is expected and doesn't really count towards anything. I would support a draftification that can be reverted if they win, but right now they are not notable. C F A 💬 17:24, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the coverage is decent as is, what reason is there to get rid of the article of a person who has a 99.9999% chance of being elected into office just before an election? Microplastic Consumer (talk) 18:19, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just a comment, a Republican did file and will be on the ballot. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 14:36, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:13, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or draftify per nom (lean draftify IMO). I've talked with the page creator about WP:NPOL already, including a bit about how a candidate's article was not put into mainspace until he actually won the election. Right now, on the page, there are four sources, two are routine coverage, one is an endorsement, and one is Wikipedia:BALLOTPEDIA. Searching on Google doesn't yield much that can be added. They don't seem to pass NPOL or WP:GNG until he actually wins the election. reppop^talk 19:05, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also wouldn't be opposed to draftifying the article until November. Bkissin (talk) 20:41, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2024 United States Shadow Senator election in the District of Columbia for now. Recreate when he wins in November. WP:NOTCRYSTAL, things happen between now and election day and as of right now Jain remains an unelected private citizen. Bkissin (talk) 20:40, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

David Martin (humorist)

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

Fails WP:BIO. The article is unreferenced, and all I can find is a number of his own essays (e.g. this New York Times satirical piece from 2000, this Chicago Tribune piece from 1993, and one Huffington Post article in 2015) and some promotional pages covering his more recent gigs and appearances. His IMDb page shows no significant roles or performances, so WP:ENTERTAINER isn't met either. No real coverage of any of his published books. GhostOfNoMeme 22:34, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. GhostOfNoMeme 22:34, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Politics, and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:03, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - completely unreferenced WP:BLP, which normally would rate a speedy deletion. The problem with what I see online is they are tangential to him (a couple of political new stories where he’s mentioned briefly), books and essays by him - but not about him, and unreliable sources. That results in a situation where there is not significant coverage of him. Sorry. Bearian (talk) 02:38, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adam VanHo

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN. The majority of references are either non-independent, court documents, or WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS predominantly in local news. No substantive change from the previous 2009 AfD ending in deletion. I wasn't able to find any significant coverage to establish notability. GhostOfNoMan 21:02, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. GhostOfNoMan 21:02, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. GhostOfNoMan 21:41, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The previous AfD notes the author as Adamvanhoforjudge (obvious COI). This time, it's Akronbrownsfan – the very same user who created the now-deleted Midwest Law Blog article, a blog that was run by Adam VanHo (as you can see via this Wayback archive which after a few seconds redirects to http://www.vanholaw.com/blog.aspx), and with zero other contributions. Some other obvious COI edits in the article's history, too (such as 330akron, Ohiodad, Akron44308 – accounts that pop up to edit his article once and disappear). GhostOfNoMan 21:12, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ohio and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:07, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've checked for sources for this individual but can only find mentions in passing which confirm the basic facts of his legal career and him being an unsuccessful election candidate, so nothing notable enough for a standalone article. Valenciano (talk) 15:03, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Adam VanHo is a noted attorney with a long and distinguished career. Adam's extensive legal work and history of quality legal representation is testified to by his numerous appearances in a variety of media outlets. His legal cases have been written about in the New York Times. There is no basis for deleting this article. It has existed since 2010. This attempt to have it removed is an absurdity -- and so is peppering the request with references to arbitrary Wikipedia policies instead of explaining in simple terms why the article is not fit for Wikipedia. Plainly obscurantist behavior. Adam VanHo has thousands of Google hits -- you are invited to peruse his many positive reviews and testimonials from clients. This is not some backwater Saul Goodman! To end, I would also describe your cynical attempt to single out the names of article contributors as downright offensive. It would seem to me that you are implying these accounts are suspect because their names are related to Ohio, the state in which Adam VanHo practises. You would not, I suspect, give a hoot if they were named YankeesFan or DallasCowboys99. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JusticeOmen (talk • contribs) 23:02, 15 September 2024 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet GhostOfNoMan 01:38, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly encourage you to read WP:BASIC and WP:BIO. I am not engaging in "obscurantism" by referencing basic policies. Notability is a core policy of Wikipedia. If you want the article to remain, you need to be making some attempt to demonstrate its notability.

Adam VanHo has thousands of Google hits – irrelevant, see WP:GOOGLEHITS.

It has existed since 2010. – irrelevant, see WP:LONGTIME.

As for This is not some backwater Saul Goodman! I never made any such aspersion. VanHo may well be a successful and accomplished lawyer, but that doesn't mean he meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines. I'm not attacking his character by saying he doesn't satisfy WP:BASIC.

And as for labelling my cynical attempt to single out the names of article contributors as downright offensive. ... I'm not trying to offend anybody, I'm highlighting the fact that this article has a suspicious pattern of editing that suggests conflicts of interest. At least three accounts clearly local to Ohio just happen to pop up over the years and make single edits only to this one article. It's not an argument for deletion per se, it's simply an eyebrow-raising observation worth noting.

You are invited to peruse his many positive reviews and testimonials from clients. – I shan't be doing that, thanks. GhostOfNoMan 00:50, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non notable lawyer as far as I can tell Kingsmasher678 (talk) 23:31, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. LizardJr8 (talk) 23:33, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. Best, GPL93 (talk) 22:52, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I was ready to defend the attorney, but other than one case that made The New York Times in 2022, and he has been doing a good job, but really hasn’t done anything for the bar or civics that would allow him to pass my standards for lawyers. Bearian (talk) 02:53, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think that this article should probably be WP:SALTed to prevent recreation given that this article was already recreated after an AfD by an SPA once before. The SPA also has already taken up a new (since-blocked) sock over the course of this discussion, so it's very possible that another attempt will happen in the future. Best, GPL93 (talk) 01:16, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, it looks like there's a very strong likelihood it'll be recreated soon after. Two blocked socks have already joined this AfD (one struck, one removed by an admin) which gives me the impression that this won't be the end of it... GhostOfNoMan 18:35, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nomination, doesn't meet WP:POLITICIAN. Sir MemeGod  13:09, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unfair business practices

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

There is no evidence of a set definition of an "unfair" practice, and this article makes heavy use of WP:SYNTH to combine various definitions from different places. However, unlike "fraud" which has a clear and agreed-upon definition, pretty much anyone can call anything an unfair business practice. I suggest it be deleted due to aforementioned SYNTH, as well as WP:NOTDICTIONARY concerns. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:57, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Companies. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:57, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:04, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep while there might not be a set definition of what unfair business practices are, or rather what these are will vary by country/organizations/schools of thought, the broad concept of unfair business practices clearly is notable. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:00, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note to the closing admin: without sourcing to prove that it is "clearly" notable, this is just WP:SOURCESEXIST. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:31, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this is a concept that does have a lot of history, and it's not as unbounded as the nomination makes it seem. For example:

EU Directive 93/13/EE, then EC 2017/2394, protect against unfair contract terms, sometimes described as "Unfair Business-to-Consumer Business Practices" [4]. Here's an announcement last week about enforcement, which talks about "unfair commercial practices" a synonym.
UK has had unfair contract terms laws for about 50 years or more. Other commonwealth jurisdictions, same.

However this article sweeps much more broadly, and doesn't just deal with issues of unfair contract terms but extends to a variety of business practices. And it's U.S. based. And it seems to be quite original-researchy. I don't like TNT but that might be the option here. Is there a possible merge/redirect target? Oblivy (talk) 01:02, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the topic has been discussed in depth in multiple reliable sources. For example:

Tamara M Buckwold, Statutory Regulation of Unfair Business Practices in Saskatchewan: Possibilities and Pitfalls, 1999 62-1 Saskatchewan Law Review 45, 1999 CanLIIDocs 624, <https://canlii.ca/t/7n2zt>, [5]
Heitler, George. “Antitrust, Restraint of Trade, and Unfair Business Practices: Impact on Physicians.” The Journal of legal medicine (Chicago. 1979) 3.3 (1982): 443–460.
Jakouloff, Karim. “Social organisations can be guilty of unfair business practices.” Revue de l’Union européenne 580 (2014): 436–440.

Two other examples:

Business Torts Reporter (a newsletter for lawyers) had a recurring column called

“Unfair Business Practices.” For example, Business Torts Reporter 24.6 (2012): 166-

The U.S. Federal Trade Commission incorporated the term into its mission statements in the late 1990s, e.g., Goal 1: Prevent fraud, deception, and unfair business practices in the marketplace [6].

Buckwold is discussing a term called an "unfair practice" in the statute, defined as:
5. It is an unfair practice for a supplier, in a transaction or proposed transaction involving goods or services, to: (a) do or say anything, or fail to do or say anything, if as a result a consumer might reasonably be deceived or misled; (b) make a false claim; (c) take advantage of a consumer if the person knows or should reasonably be expected to know that the consumer: (i) is not in a position to protect his or her own interests; or (ii) is not reasonably able to understand the nature of the transaction or proposed transaction. That seems like a workable scope.

Buckwold notes that Canadian provinces have laws headed 'Unfair Trade Practices Act" or "Trade Practices Act" or "Business Practices Act". This is a common issue in the project, which can be addressed by putting alternate terms at the top. There's been a shift towards Unfair Commercial Practices in recent years but I think the meaning is the same. Oblivy (talk) 23:07, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, conditionally. It’s not the most common legal term of art, but based upon what’s been found and noted above, it’s got significant coverage. My opinion that WP: HEY is met, is conditioned on someone adding the sources found to the article and making sense of it. In the alternate, if nobody volunteered to work on it, userfy it to my space. I’m not sure if I can work on this one this week. Bearian (talk) 03:03, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies GNG and does not violate NOT. A topic should not be deleted merely because its definition is unclear or disputed. If we deleted articles on such grounds we would have to delete our articles on law, justice, crime, marriage and sin to begin with, because there is no worldwide agreement about what they actually consist of. For the avoidance of doubt, an article should not be deleted merely because it needs to be disambiguated or split. James500 (talk) 04:08, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this and to @Bearian as well. I'm encouraged by the replies although I find the mention of Justice a bit triggering because it attracts diverse opinions (I'm thinking of a particular divine justice editor...). I'll see if I can make time over the next few days for a first swipe at this and will report back if I do. Oblivy (talk) 05:30, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have substantially rewritten the article. It's much narrower in scope (maybe too narrow?). It needs a narrative rather than just country-by-country -- I have ideas on what's needed but not enough time to do it, so any helping hand would be great. Oblivy (talk) 09:08, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ijaz Hussain Batalve

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

Article is not fit for main article space - too many problems with language, grammar, style, etc., but Draft:Ijaz Hussain Batalve already exists. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:29, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, and Pakistan. Shellwood (talk) 14:18, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

article is good enough and unique...grammar or language may be corrected...Article should be retained. Mottoo99 (talk) 16:25, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So fix the grammar and language first, in the draft article, then move it to mainspace? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:35, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Bastun, as you said, a draft exist for this, so why not put in a history merger template before an AFD? Even if it goes through not, at least give it a try! Intrisit (talk) 16:06, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On which version? One contains at least one copyright violation (now removed)? Simpler to just have the draft to work on, then have that go through AFC? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:35, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Punjab-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:00, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I drafted it because I had concerns that it might not easily meet WP:N. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:14, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He is still a famous and most respected personality of Asia adding his profile on Wikipedia is very much appropriate and knowledgeful for Wikipedians and otherwise. His contributions deserve to be appreciated by Wikipedia etc. Emmay33 (talk) 09:45, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody is saying there can't be an article. The problem is the language and grammar are currently too poor to publish. The article can be improved in draft space, then get moved to main article space. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 10:37, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note - AfD template removed by IP editor 116.71.176.235, restored now. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:58, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah F. Russell

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

Delete per WP:GNG. As per new policy, unless otherwise notable, new Article III Judge articles are incubated in draft space until the individual is actually confirmed by the Senate. Additionally, a draft article already exists for this individual. So this article should not be moved, but should simple be deleted outright. Safiel (talk) 21:39, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, and Massachusetts. Shellwood (talk) 22:03, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:17, 14 September 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:24, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As the nom has noted, federal judicial nominees aren't inherently notable, and the WP:GNG is not met here due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. Let'srun (talk) 12:02, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination and comments. Easy call. Go4thProsper (talk) 07:04, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. And I agree with nominator's comments, did this editor not see that there was already a draft in waiting? Snickers2686 (talk) 16:18, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Comeaux

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:BIO. Man doing his job. No indication of significance. scope_creep^Talk 10:25, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, and Louisiana. Shellwood (talk) 10:27, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BucketSky10 (talk) 17:35, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Although I'd agree that simply doing the job alone does not indicate significance, I'd contend that the area of impact and subject matter constitute significance. Comeaux oversees/implements the DEA's policies for over 16 million people throughout Texas. This is particularly significant considering the hot button topic of the opioid epidemic--especially so as fentanyl coming through Texas is a large focus of nationwide policy and debate. For notoriety, the Houston Chronicle (one of the largest newspapers in the nation) did a piece solely focused on him and CBS and NBC affiliates in Houston (KHOU and KPRC respectively) have also featured him for interviews. BucketSky10 (talk) 17:35, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BucketSky10: Interviews don't count toward establishing notability. If you have sources, now is the time to post them here. WP:THREE is the formal standard for establishing. Post three WP:SECONDARY sources to prove its notable. scope_creep^Talk 17:44, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BucketSky10 (talk) 00:27, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here are my three: 1, 2, 3 . I appreciate your time throughout this process. BucketSky10 (talk) 00:27, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Derrick Anderson (politician)

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

Political candidates do not meet WP:NPOL. Otherwise, there is no evidence of the subject meeting WP:GNG. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 04:14, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Law, Military, Virginia, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:24, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak delete~~ per nomination, doesn't yet meet WP:NPOL until he's won an election. An online search for reliable sources returned routine candidate coverage and interviews with Anderson, and interviews are primary sources. His previous work in the White House was as a lawyer for the Office of National Drug Control Policy, and I couldn't find any SIGCOV of him in that role. The closest I came was these two articles in the Washington Post [7], [8], both of which are about the election rather than about Anderson. The sentence in WP:NPOL that declares presumed notability for "major local political figures who have received significant press coverage" doesn't seem to apply here, so I don't see that as pulling him over the line for WP:NPOL, WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Wikishovel (talk) 11:16, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my !vote to redirect per User:Bkissin below. Wikishovel (talk) 21:24, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Paging JTtheOG, who put a PD on this page BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 18:55, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2024 United States House of Representatives elections in Virginia#District 7. Unelected candidates do not meet WP:NPOL. If he wins in November, we can recreate the article. Bkissin (talk) 20:38, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Diamond

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

Questionable notability for Australian bureaucrat. Most sources discuss the RTBU rather than Diamond. Insufficient WP:RS to meet WP:ANYBIO. Cabrils (talk) 02:40, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Law, and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:22, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Profile is sufficing the WP:BLP and WP:Notability. As per the WRS, here's the link providing his mentions on multiple government official websites as well as on Parliament of New South Wales' official website. Article can be made concise rejecting the poorly sourced information. Here are the links below I have found during research validating his notability.

https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/rail-unions-given-24-hours-to-call-off-industrial-action-20220901-p5bepf.html

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/sep/06/sydney-train-strikes-union-boss-hopes-federal-intervention-puts-go-slow-on-nsw-government-action

https://www.rtbu.org.au/mark_diamond_appointed_as_new_rtbu_national_secretary

https://www.rtbu.org.au/who_s_who

https://www.actu.org.au/directory/rail-tram-and-bus-union-rtbu-national-office/

https://www.news.com.au/travel/travel-updates/dominic-perrottet-told-to-call-gladys-berejiklian-as-rail-feud-continues/news-story/12176af725b86627d3612ee8ee0a7586

https://www.rtbu.org.au/national_council_2023_wrap

https://rtbuexpress.com.au/rtbu-owned-training-organisation/

https://www.rtbu.org.au/resignation_of_national_secretary_mark_diamond

https://www.railexpress.com.au/rtbu-appoints-new-national-secretary/

https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/compromise-in-the-jobs-summit-confrontation-in-the-foyer-20220901-p5bemu.html

https://www.fullyloaded.com.au/rtbu-names-new-national-secretary/

https://www.busnews.com.au/rtbu-says-federal-budget-a-turning-point-in-public-transport-funding/

https://www.themandarin.com.au/198708-perrottet-and-rtbu-attend-summit-as-industrial-actions-continue/

https://www.fwc.gov.au/documents/organisations/registered-orgs/139v-r2022-201.pdf

https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/Hansard/Pages/HansardResult.aspx#/docid/HANSARD-1820781676-96367

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/sep/01/dummy-spitting-nsw-government-gives-rail-union-24-hours-to-end-industrial-action

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-02-21/wallan-train-derailment-union-says-track-awaiting-maintenance/11987230

Tamaraharon (talk) 17:58, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

rtbu.org.au would be a primary source. LibStar (talk) 03:07, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. It would be helpful to get an assessment on this huge list of links so we know whether or not they are reliable. Tamaraharon, it would be helpful if you made this live, active links.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:33, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Australian Rail Tram and Bus Industry Union~~Delete~~ I had looked at this article when it was first listed, and found many of the sources identified by @Tamaraharon so this was quick work. Aside from the primary sources, these are mostly just Diamond being quoted in an article which I don't think qualifies for notability.

I see one source that qualifies for notability in the whole pile -- the Sydney Morning Herald article, #11 below -- which can be seen as significant and independent coverage from a major news outlet. The Guardian article #16 has a bit of editorial independence but it's really short - basically quoting him and then quoting someone reacting to him.

[9] - quoting MD only
[10] - quoting MD only
[11] - primary
[12] - primary
[13] - doesn't mention MD
[14] - quoting extensively with some editorial independence (but no independent reporting about Diamond)
[15] - primary
[16] - primary
[17] - primary
[18] - all material about him is from RBTU employee, lacks independence
[19] - independent, significant, about Diamond
[20] - same as railexpress.com.au article #10, lacks independence
[21] - quoting MD only
[22] - mention only
[23] - all material about him is from RBTU employee, lacks independence
[24] - quoting MD, plus very brief coverage
[25] - quoting MD only

Oblivy (talk) 13:39, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I highly doubt your assessment of sources because the pages that you published, you have cited primary sources, even press releases of the same company website. Here's the example Tam Jai Noodle#cite note-10 , Tam Jai Noodle#cite note-11, High Sierra Music Festival#cite note-2, High Sierra Music Festival#cite note-3. In fact, most of the sources in your pages are weakest and lack reliability so i believe your assessment of sources on Mark Diamond page is bias. Tamaraharon (talk) 17:17, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:BIO which is the applicable notability guideline, an article needs to be supported by "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject".

On the other hand, primary sources are explicitly allowed for articles even though they do not count for notability, per WP:PRIMARY: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources, and to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources".

I hope this is helpful.Oblivy (talk) 01:39, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Article should be converted to a stub using only independent reliable sources. This justifies WP:Notability. Chris.lee auth (talk) 18:04, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: Primary sources usage does not consent lack of notability. Profile has moderate recognition on gov website of Parliament of New South Wales. Subject has historical relevance.

Rpgea (talk) 22:50, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Darrell Castle

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NPOL, WP:BIO, WP:SIGCOV. Routine coverage, interviews, profiles, election news. No indication of signficance. scope_creep^Talk 08:23, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Law, and Tennessee. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:44, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to notability issues. If there is an appropriate article, then redirect. 21 Andromedae (talk) 14:12, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, As a presidential nominee, Castle did better than any other Constitution Party candidate in both of his runs, winning nearly 200k votes each time. He was endorsed by Glenn Beck in 2016 and got some meaningful coverage [26][27][28][29]

As a lawyer, he founded Darrell Castle & Associates and has been interviewed by the New York Times earlier this year relating to the sale of Graceland. Microplastic Consumer (talk) 22:10, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - besides being on the ballot in multiple states, there is significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 00:49, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per reliable sources in this discussion and in article. If not kept, all content should be merged to Darrell Castle 2016 presidential campaign.--User:Namiba 14:53, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:43, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Daman and Diu Police

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

Daman and Diu Police is now merged with Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Daman and Diu Police. — Hemant Dabral (📞 • ✒) 02:34, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 September 8. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:48, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:01, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:01, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Police-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:01, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No valid deletion rationale. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:32, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Daman and Diu#Administration. Not really much to sustain an article that goes beyond the basics, and it can be split out again if it grows. Geschichte (talk) 06:59, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:54, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article needs cleanup and could do with some more content, but I find it highly unlikely that a police force of a union territory of India would not be notable. The nom has also not provided a clear rationale for deletion, as simply the fact the organisation no longer exists is irrelevant per WP:NOTTEMPORARY. AusLondonder (talk) 09:11, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]