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

Nadia Shahram

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

Fails WP:BIO, WP:AUTHOR No significant independent coverage of subject or CAMW organization she is associated with. Found one write-up in a small alumni magazine from 2005 (http://media.wix.com/ugd/ba8d3a_69ce4f04eab549e8992314f78621c089.pdf). There are a few sentences in larger papers like Fox from 2011 (https://www.foxnews.com/us/jury-convicts-new-york-tv-executive-of-beheading-wife) but doubt it rises to level of notability since they are not specifically about subject. No significant coverage located for book or minor awards. InsomniaOpossum (talk) 21:44, 19 January 2025 (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/2025 January 19. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:55, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Women, Law, Islam, Iran, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:10, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Post-2012 legal history of Anders Breivik

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

The content of the article has been copied from Anders Behring Breivik and consists largely of excessive and irrelevant details about Breivik's trials regarding his prison conditions. Instead of moving the cruft to a new article, we should clean up and condense the stuff in Anders Behring Breivik. Chrisahn (talk) 14:32, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Law, Terrorism, and Norway. Chrisahn (talk) 14:32, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

obvious WP:FORK delete Mangoe (talk) 21:50, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Parker Bailey

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

Fails all notability (even GNG). No sourced references. Easily merged/linked with notable association page: Horatio Parker if deemed notable for mention. Maineartists (talk) 23:34, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Law, and Connecticut. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:15, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ThisGuy (talk • contributions) 17:11, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dmitry G. Gorin

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

It looks like he was involved in a bunch of notable court cases as a deputy DA but none of the refs are about him as an individual, it's all about the cases. The only exceptions are personal bios and this interview about his practice. BuySomeApples (talk) 05:26, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Law, Russia, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:36, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No notability, just an attack page. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:21, 17 January 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Keep. At first glance, I was inclined to agree with the nominator. However, after looking more closely, it’s clear this isn’t just any average lawyer we’re talking about - on the opposite. I also disagree with calling it “just another promo page” because every case is backed by independent sources, and the article itself is relatively well-written compared to similar lawyer pages on Wikipedia. Anyways, here is a breakdown of what I found:
- 1) Senior Deputy District Attorney Experience and Lecturer at UCLA - the individual served as a Senior Deputy District Attorney in Los Angeles County for many years—one of the largest districts in the United States. This role indicates they managed high-profile public cases over an extended period. He has also been a lecturer at UCLA, teaching two law courses since 2003 (as noted on the UCLA website).

2) Notable Cases - Lawyers can establish notability through the cases they handle. The “Notable cases” section of Gorin includes several high-profile matters, a few of them with their own Wikipedia pages. This list is already significant and it is not even complete.

For instance, the attorney recently defended a Los Angeles Deputy Mayor, as reported here but doesn't appear on his Wikipedia page:

https://www.cbsnews.com/losangeles/news/los-angeles-deputy-mayor-brian-williams-fbi-search-bomb-threat-against-city-hall/

Moreover, there’s substantial, ongoing coverage of this lawyer’s activities across the internet: https://www.google.com/search?num=10&client=opera&hs=yp4&sca_esv=2e9d584eca4b7171&sxsrf=ADLYWIJkODkpzSutiQ9Fstquqdk8FeYYWQ:1737252893598&q=Dmitry+Gorin+lawyer&tbm=nws&source=lnms&fbs=AEQNm0Aa4sjWe7Rqy32pFwRj0UkWd8nbOJfsBGGB5IQQO6L3JzWreY9LW7LdGrLDAFqYDH2Z7s7jqgHIAW8PVnwe_sR_e-RCOLF8PNV6cgrvTe9W1QlY3sOMCnrD6DpPmucUF3Q4DWCnbUQ16OCFEw0bA3f-zorCYPCwItkuWVcknbOv4-nN1bzai1VYTk7zJThGO9aVJKR1TUIesAdeoQ7gAi3QfFsX3Q&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwicou6s24CLAxUcJzQIHRecNVsQ0pQJegQIDhAB&biw=1226&bih=552&dpr=1.5

The best sources on his page are from the Daily Journal and UCLA (both appear to be independent with in-depth coverage), but I doubt the editor who created the page has fully captured the breadth of available information or conducted thorough research.

3) Professional Directories - Several nationwide lawyer directories — independent to the best of my industry knowledge — rank him among the top attorneys in the country:

https://www.bestlawyers.com/lawyers/dmitry-gorin/157188/ https://profiles.superlawyers.com/california/los-angeles/lawyer/dmitry-gorin/29d97483-1d6e-4a02-b50d-9a4a91ac68e1.html

My point is that this individual is certainly not a “run-of-the-mill” lawyer; they have played a significant public role, handled numerous notable cases, and also teach at a prominent university (UCLA). 50.39.138.50 (talk) 03:13, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Abode Solicitors Ltd

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

A search for sources yielded 1 google news hit. Fails WP:CORP. LibStar (talk) 22:52, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Companies, and England. LibStar (talk) 22:52, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The heady claims are not sourced. This is a small law firm: I once worked at a firm of which I was one of four lawyers and a bunch of staff people. This is run of the mill. Bearian (talk) 03:30, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Centerbase

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

No indication of NCORP or SIGCOV, the references are mostly press releases or other non RSes. I couldn't find much on a BEFORE either. BuySomeApples (talk) 04:09, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Idoghor Melody (talk) 04:25, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Companies, Software, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:06, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I too struggled to find decent sources with significant coverage that aren't press releases or simply inclusion in a list of legal apps. The best I could do is: Rowland, Seth G.; Rowland, Samuel (2018). "Legal Apps for the Lawyer on the Go". GPSolo. 35 (3): 46–51. ISSN 1528-638X.. The article has a paragraph describing Centerbase as a "product outlier" in the cloud-based practice management category. I'd not consider that sufficient to establish notability, but maybe it would help if other complementary sources came to light. SunloungerFrog (talk) 13:41, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unable to find sufficient reliable sources providing significant coverage. Madeleine (talk) 18:40, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yaron Gottlieb

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

Fails to meet WP:N. I have been unable to find any significant coverage in reliable sources. The article's sources are mostly the subject's own works along with an article that quotes the subject a single time. Should be deleted per WP:GNG. --Helleniac (talk) 22:46, 13 January 2025 (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/2025 January 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:54, 13 January 2025 (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/2025 January 14. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:34, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I have fixed some malformed formatting in this nomination that hid a good chunk of it when transcluded. No opinion. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:47, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, Israel, and France. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:48, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just noting that the nominator has been blocked as a sockpuppet, and some of their other contributions make me a little concerned that this nomination might not have been done in good faith. No opinion at this point on the merits of the AfD. MCE89 (talk) 10:35, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Brief article on a professional at work. Fails the GNG. gidonb (talk) 04:23, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - while it's true that he's not notable as an adjunct professor, he's the executive director of legal affairs for Interpol, and he's gotten some coverage for that. Bearian (talk) 05:16, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

William Parente

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:BIO1E and WP:EVENTCRIT and WP:NOTNEWS. Article is sourced entirely to news sources in April 2009. No evidence of lasting significance in WP:SUSTAINED coverage or WP:DIVERSE sourcing. The last AFD was in 2009. Distance should give us better perspective that the event wasn't significant. 4meter4 (talk) 15:24, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Is profiled for a large portion of the Prometheus Books book "Killer Dads" by journalist Mary Papenfus, which has a lot of detail and analysis to pass WP:NEVENT and by extension WP:NCRIMINAL. On the strength of that source alone, I would vote keep. I can retitle it and shuffle stuff around to "eventify" it as "Parente family murders" or something, though with familicides we don't always do that because of how they're covered, and also in this one there's the thing about the Ponzi scheme.... There's also later news coverage and commentary due to the bizarre involvement of the Ponzi scheme in this whole affair. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:59, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Bobby Cohn (talk) 17:06, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Agree with PARAKANYAA that the book coverage demonstrates sustained coverage and in combination with news coverage at the time is enough to meet WP:GNG. The book is available on IA by the way. Not opposed to eventifying the article but the topic should be kept. Jfire (talk) 17:17, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. @ PARAKANYAA is there one more source from outside of the 2009 window of coverage? Papenfus' book is certainly a great find, but I would think we would need at least one more source of this quality to satisfy WP:EVENTCRIT. If you are able to find one more of this calibre I will gladly withdraw the nomination. I do think we should retitle the article as an event.4meter4 (talk) 17:23, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Law, Maryland, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:43, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Geoff Berman

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

Tagged for notability since 2018. Time for the community to discuss this and decide one way or the other. Not clear the subject passes WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 03:47, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Politics, California, Missouri, New York, and Virginia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:44, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:49, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Government procurement in Poland

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

Links to only one article. Text has not been significantly updated since the page was first made. No proof that the article falls under WP:SIGCOV; no sources are listed on the article, and even Polish Wikipedia has only one secondary source. I would additionally argue that the article falls under WP:A1. Mupper-san (talk) 04:34, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Poland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:56, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:44, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT as the least-bad option where every option sucks. Looking at the common outcomes of AfDs:

The article obviously can't be kept in its current form
The article doesn't qualify for WP:A1 by my reading of that policy; it's at least possible to tell by reading the article what it is about
The article also doesn't obviously meet any of the reasons for deletion; in particular, I have a hard time believing the subject isn't notable or that reliable sources don't exist considering it's an important matter of policy concerning a national government.
The article could be merged or redirected, but I don't see anything in Category:Government of Poland that jumps out at me as a useful redirect target, i.e. one that would actually cause wiki readers to be redirected to a page with content they're looking for. Also, I'm not convinced that any of the existing content would survive a merge.
Finally, considering the page history draftifying would be a way to delete the article with extra steps per WP:G13.

Unfortunately, the article has existed more or less in its current state since 2013; I think the least-bad option is to redlink it in the hopes that an editor shows up at some point with the necessary expertise (or at least ability to read Polish sources) to write a decent article in its place. --Richard Yin (talk) 08:35, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of law enforcement agencies on Long Island

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

Also nominating:

These articles contain duplicated information from sections of List of law enforcement agencies in New York (state). It’s repetitive and unnecessary. Law enforcement in Westchester County and Law enforcement in New York City should also be deleted for the same reason. Any missing paragraph summaries can be copied from these articles to the state article or to Law enforcement in New York (state). - Joeal532 talk 20:43, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting list for the following topic: Organizations.
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Lists, and New York. Shellwood (talk) 22:48, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Police-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:12, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Westchester and Long Island, keep NYC The first two are just items that can be noted on the county articles very easily, but the NYC article has to deal with numerous items just because of the complexity of the NYPD and other federal and state agencies and is a fine article in its current state. Nate • (chatter) 21:18, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — (leaning) — I’m definitely leaning delete, but I would second Nate in that NYC should be kept. WP:NLIST is actually quite forward in stating that “list of…” (and even “list of X of Y” as these articles are) should be be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. I agree that there is some redundancy with these sorts of articles, but they can be handy. Regardless, the law enforcement side of Wikipedia is a personal project of mine, and while I agree that Westchester and Long Island are getting a bit redundant, etc, I do, however, feel that NYC, as the most populous city of the United States, and its large number of LEAs and LEOs (and a significant number of unique LEAs, at that) deserves to have his own list, even in the face of list of law enforcement agencies in New York (state). I say I am only 'leaning' delete, because if I can justify the existence of the NYC article, I’m assuming someone can justify Westchester/LI, and I’d be open to hearing their argument(s).
MWFwiki (talk) 01:49, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but keep the NYC article as per the discussion thread. I'm surprised by the number of red links. Bearian (talk) 05:48, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. User:Joeal532 this AFD is not properly formatted as a bundled nomination and can't be closed as one. Please review WP:AFD for instructions multiple nominations and format this appropriately. Thank you.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:40, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Contains duplicate content. But keep the NYC article. Drushrush (talk) 07:17, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as deletion does not solve the problem of duplicated content or an ugly article. A better solution is to rewrite the articles so that the content is county specific and the National and State level agencies are listed at the top level of the hierarchy, only, with merely a reference to there being a higher geographic level of agencies. In other instances where I have noticed duplicate articles about law enforcement in a county, the articles about the law enforcement agencies in that county have been merged into the geographic articles of where they operate. If these articles are not going to be kept, then I would suggest a Merge (or at least a redirect) of the Long Island article into the article about Long Island, where there is a section already. Also Merge (or redirect) the Westchester County into Westchester County, where there is already a section, too. Like others have also asked, I ask to Keep the New York City article separate, as it is a bit large to merge back into the New York City section on public safety, and other subarticles exist on related topics also exist, for that very large article. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 00:58, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Moliere Dimanche

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Moliere Dimanche

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

This is a copy of Draft:Moe Dimanche which the creator of both articles, User:NovembersHeartbeat, submitted to Articles for Creation back in September. This user has now made a new article, Moliere Dimanche, to bypass the AfC process, and redirected Moe Dimanche to lead back to this article. I have suspicions about WP:COI that I have expressed on NovembersHeartbeat's talk page (Dimanche is running to be Governor of Florida, which provides a clear motivation). NovembersHeartbeat also created Dimanche v. Brown for a legal case Dimanche was prominent within, and I am now also considering this for deletion. I would like some external advice on whether any of these articles pass WP:GNG as I am not well versed on American legal stuff like this. Spiralwidget (talk) 14:53, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for initiating this discussion. I would like to address some concerns raised in the nomination statement: My contributions to Wikipedia have been neutral, informative, and edited by Admins. I like editing on Wikipedia because I like spreading knowledge. My contributions include the Federal Magistrates Act, the JUDGES Act, and I'm currently putting together a page on the concept of Unsettled Law. These are topics that serve public interest and make people wiser, and why people rely on wikipedia more than any other source of enlightenment. This user SpiralWidget on the other hand has had his pages deleted because he abandoned them for 6 months. I take the spread of knowledge seriously, and I am grateful for the opportunity to do so.

Redirects and Related Articles: The user SpiralWidget says he has conflict of interest concerns, which were addressed when he first started editing the page Moe Dimanche. I think his primary reason for nominating the article for deletion is because it is a duplicate page. However, the wikipedia deletion policy specifically says

"If two pages are duplicates or otherwise redundant, one should be merged and redirected to the other, using the most common, or more general page name. This does not require process or formal debate beforehand."

But SpiralWidget moved the redirect page anyway because he wanted a formal discussion. The redirect Moe Dimanche was created to aid navigation for users searching under this common nickname. As for Dimanche v. Brown, it is a separate topic with its own independent notability, as demonstrated by coverage in legal publications and its significance in state-level jurisprudence. These articles serve distinct purposes and are appropriately created. 2. Conflict of Interest: I have no personal or professional connection to Moliere Dimanche. The article was written to document a notable public figure in compliance with Wikipedia’s WP:COI and WP:NPOV guidelines. This was already explained to SpiralWidget, even though I do not owe him an explanation. I came across Mr. Dimanche's YouTube videos after a judge in my city reopened a death investigation into a death of an inmate at a local prison. The only videos I could find on that inmate were done by Mr. Dimanche's Youtube channel and I learned more about him and asked why there wasn't a wikipedia page about him. So I decided to do it, as I began to follow what was going on with him. I welcome further discussion on how to improve the article and ensure compliance with Wikipedia's policies. I hope my contributions to Wikipedia demonstrate how serious I am about expanding knowledge in the areas of law and civil rights. I hope to help those looking to navigating complex legal theories and civil rights. NovembersHeartbeat (talk) 16:01, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Authors, Crime, Law, Haiti, United States of America, and Florida. Skynxnex (talk) 16:57, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This wall of text isn't going to advance your case. Please don't accuse other editors of vandalism without evidence. Cutlass ^Ciera 18:24, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG. Cutlass ^Ciera 18:39, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Marginally Keep While I share suspicions that this is self-promotion by the primary contributor or meatpuppetry by the subject, I find that this does meet the general criteria for inclusion. Though not all the detail is necessary, the case cited does lend credence to the idea that the case and the subject of the case is notable enough; the precedent set is not nontrivial. Given the numerous local sources (admittedly probably pushing their own agenda), I think it marginally meets the threshold for inclusion. I would strongly advise User:NovembersHeartbeat to back off for a few days and likewise recant/strike his remarks about "vandalism". This is not "your" article. It is open to anyone to edit and improve within our guidelines. Buffs (talk) 22:35, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep When I first came across this draft in AfC, I refrained from reviewing as the notability seemed marginal–it could've gone both ways. However, I do feel that there are some significant coverage of him as an artist, but this article needs to be ridden of fluff and promotion. [1] I also found this book by Nicole R. Fleetwood that discusses his art in detail. Ca ^{talk to me!} 02:00, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 15:04, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. My presumption is that the subject of the article wrote this article or is heavily involved in its creation. I'll concede it is possible that the creator is telling the truth about their identity and they simply find the figure admirable. Shortly after at least some content was removed for copyright infringement, the subject's photograph and the subject's artwork were re-uploaded by the subject into Wikimedia Commons and released into the public domain. This is simply too great of a coincidence to ignore. ~~All of this~~ A bulk of this new user's edits are related to the subject. Frankly, the only evidence I can weigh in favor that this article was not written by Dimanche is this little viewed canvassing attempt I found on Twitter to oppose the deletion. This is a clear violation of the conflict of interest rules, specifically those around political advocacy and the rules against canvassing. When weighing my response against the weak keeps, please consider this might be part of what is influencing my delete vote.

The claims are artist and plantiff in an important court case. His candidacy as of now, in of itself, would not qualify him under WP:POLITICIAN and that does not seem to be a fact on which the article creator is basing their argument that the subject meets the various notability criteria.

On the note of his time as an artist, the writer does make a strong effort to attempt to demonstrate WP:GNG through mentioning various, wider distribution publications in which Dimache is mentioned or the subject. A Google News search indicates these are the ONLY third party coverage and while they are not all published on the same day, the similar content strikes me as creating an article on a news story covered in 109 newspapers. For example, the Salon is a literal republication of The Conversation's piece on the Dimanche. These duplicative citations, combined with mentions such as taking a job at Winn-Dixie lead me to believe these are an effort to mask a lack of notability. I cannot consider him to have met the guidelines for artists.

The second is his status as the plaintiff of Dimanche v. Brown. I believe that, while the case itself is notable (and a good outcome for the country), Dimanche would be someone notable for a single event. Plaintiffs Lonnie E. Smith, of Smith v. Allwright, Otis McDonald of McDonald v. City of Chicago, and Charlie Craig and David Mullins from Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission do not have separate articles under this policy. I would not be opposed to some sort of merger with the court case. Additional information included in this article about the plantiff could be relevant. As I end all discussions, particularly those from articles written in a promotional manner. Wikipedia is not a badge of honor. An article about yourself or someone you like isn't necessarily a good thing.--Mpen320 (talk) 17:29, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Mpen320 (talk) 21:59, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 14:12, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:GNG. Some of the sources are duplicates of each other and some mention the subject only marginally, if at all. The best source here seems to be The Conversation, but for some weird reason that article is duplicated in The Salon and in the first reference (which does not even name its source).--DesiMoore (talk) 15:50, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I believe what you are referring to is called print syndication. This happens when an article is aggregated through multiple outlets if it is a popular news article. This is common with newsworthy articles. The reference you are talking about was sourced far beyond the Conversation and Salon. It was syndicated at The Middle East North Africa Financial Network, Inc. (MENAFN): https://menafn.com/1097370694/Through-his-art-a-former-prisoner-diagnoses-the-systemic-sickness-of-Floridas-penitentiaries; Interalia Magazine published by Yiannis Melanitis: https://www.interaliamag.org/articles/through-his-art-a-former-prisoner-diagnoses-the-systemic-sickness-of-floridas-penitentiaries/; The Malta Independent: https://www.pressreader.com/malta/malta-independent/20190209/page/1/textview, and many, many more publications, including the Chicago Tribune, L.A. Times, AP, The Good Men Project, and the Global Network Initiative. I understand it can look confusing, but the way you characterized that article is simply not accurate. The artwork in that particular article reached a global audience, from Spain, North Africa, Iran, Australia and most certainly the U.S. Publications across the globe adopted the exact same article through the syndication process, even though it originated on The Conversation. There was no need to include any of the global references in the article because I was not trying to prove the art is known on the world stage, the point of the references to the art was to demonstrate how the technique was received because it is unusual that art created by prisoners is received well at all. It appears to me that art was successfully used to escape the stigma of criminality associated with inmates and that was more important than demonstrating the reach of the article from The Conversation. NovembersHeartbeat (talk) 00:39, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: The Conversation releases its articles under a CC 4.0 license. They are not so much syndicated like a comic strip but rather available freely to any publication that needs to boost its inventory of quality articles in an era of readers demanding instant, infinite content. Salon appears to regularly publish the Conversation's articles so I don't think its republication in Salon is so unique as to warrant double counting it as two unique sources to meet GNG. I also searched The Chicago Tribune and the Associated Press and received zero results. I would recommend if you want to demonstrate notability, then you need to do more than just say he's an artist with a republished article. Wikipedia's Prison art demonstrates prison art is not so rare and new its artists are inherently more notable and requires less coverage than others to be here. Finally, An article about yourself or someone you like isn't necessarily a good thing.--Mpen320 (talk) 15:01, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing I would say about that, is that what you call republishing, I would call an endorsement. I think it is not as simple as The Conversation clicking "publish" and it appears in articles all over the world. I think those publishers independently decide if they want to promote the content of the article to their own readers. As you can see with the Malta Independent publication, it was in-print, even though you can read it online. That means Maltese people held that article in their hands and read it at home. That's just the mediterranean. The Conversation is based in Australia, MENAFN is for North Africa, and Dimanche is an American artist. That's Europe, Africa and Australia. The Good Men Project is based in Dallas, and their article is just one region in North America: https://goodmenproject.com/featured-content/through-his-art-a-former-prisoner-diagnoses-the-systemic-sickness-of-floridas-penitentiaries-phtz/. The criminal justice initiative by the John Galsworthy foundation endorsed it: https://www.galsworthycjr.org/civil-society-issues/2018/9/3/through-his-art-a-former-prisoner-diagnoses-the-systemic-sickness-of-floridas-penitentiaries. As to your search in Chicago Tribune, it probably depends on what search engine you use, but I use Yandex. It's the same article, and I guess its up to how you interpret it, whether its publisher's needing content, or as I say, endorsements from publishers of the what the focus of the Conversation piece is about. Regardless of how you view that particular article, meeting GNG was not solely relying on that one. Again, I was not aiming to focus on the global recognition of the art, which is a fact, regardless of how global syndication is viewed. I wanted to focus on what the art meant to people, especially those involved in the prison reform movement, and the art sparked an important conversation. Despite being a "featured" article in multiple countries, the art also relied on another feature: https://www.staugustine.com/story/news/2016/08/12/2016-08-12-1/16300345007/. These articles are years apart, and this article was also published in print, and Mr. Dimanche was on the cover. It also relied on Folio, and I honestly did not expect to debate an artists, recognition with any involvement with Folio, whatsoever. In the art world, it's one of the most prestigious publications, and all artists vie for some type of mention there. I even found one in Arbus, but the link was broken, so I didn't use it. The article also cited an appearance at the International Center of Photography where he was a headliner, again talking about his art. Maybe I didn't go into detail about the coverage, but I was not trying to make the article all about his achievements as an artist, and I didn't want to make it promotional, like he was Pablo Picasso or anything like that. But it seems to me like any time there is a feature on his art, its a pretty significant story every time, and I don't believe there is a genuine dispute about whether or not he meets GNC based on art alone. That's not to mention, yet another feature, in the Marking Time book, or the local radio appearances talking about art. I didn't cite any of the radio appearances I found because it just came off as promotional, and he primarily discusses upcoming art exhibits at different venues. But with global recognition, headlining panel discussions about art, in-print circulation of the art, and a feature in a book published by Rutgers, he clearly meets GNG. NovembersHeartbeat (talk) 20:11, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. "That means Maltese people held that article in their hands and read it at home." That is aggressively irrelevant to the matter at hand. These non-sequiturs, claims of endorsement by publications, other misrepresentations, and selective reading (no one is saying The Conversation is a bad citation, just that it shouldn't be triple-counted) serve no point, but to bog down those who disagree with you in a Gish gallop.--Mpen320 (talk) 19:10, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Endorsement" is just my view of it, and you are free to disagree. We can agree to disagree on that point, but until we ask the publishers directly, we will never know. Maybe they just want to share various perspectives. Your guess is as good as mine, but they chose to amplify the content in multiple countries, and that's a good thing. I don't intend for this to be an argument, but you said "Salon appears to regularly publish the Conversation's articles so I don't think its republication in Salon is so unique as to warrant double counting it as two unique sources to meet GNG". That's why I had to demonstrate that it went far beyond Salon. I thought you were saying that Salon and the Conversation were pretty much one and the same, and I provided additional sources that conclude that every publication can't be a doppelgänger of the Conversation. You also said "I would recommend if you want to demonstrate notability, then you need to do more than just say he's an artist with a republished article". So I provided the feature from the St. Augustine Record, the ICP citation, and the Marking Time feature because you implied that the only source was that one article. I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I'm just clarifying that there were additional sources already included in the article, and that the reach of the Conversation article was global. NovembersHeartbeat (talk) 20:23, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm undecided as to keep/delete, but I've gone ahead and trimmed down the article to remove puffery and badly-sourced information. @NovembersHeartbeat, some advice: write shorter comments and use paragraph breaks instead of composing a huge undivided block of text.. --Richard Yin (talk) 00:12, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what you mean by write them myself, but whatever you say. This is exactly why I opted to stay out of this conversation. If my input isn't welcome, that is fine. I have no idea how you differentiate between what you cal "fluff" on one hand, but expect to be "notable" on the other hand. I just looked at the edits you made, and you deleted the citation that was added by the user who nominated the article for deletion in the first place. I didn't write that part, and was actually accused of trying to obscure the prison stint, so I am wholly confused as to what is considered "fluff" and what is not. Then you deleted an edit written by an administrator, who made that edit to clarify that the view about systemic injustice was subjective, so I'm of the view that you seem to be searching for issues with the article, when there are none. If that is what this is about, I won't say anything else about it. NovembersHeartbeat (talk) 00:24, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for the "write them yourself" comment: I initially thought this was AI-generated but then noticed some grammar errors that made me reconsider, and you seem to have read my comment before I removed that part of it.

As to the rest of your comment, other editors are certainly free to disagree with me on what exactly constitutes fluff/puffery, in which case they're welcome to undo some or all of my changes and I won't argue, but in general it's important to avoid placing undue weight on certain viewpoints (as was the case with the extended quotes section - a collection of praise from different authors compromises the article's neutrality), using peacock or promotional wording, and presenting opinions as fact. As for notability, you shouldn't need to argue in the article that the subject is notable if the references support notability. --Richard Yin (talk) 00:53, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for that. I have no problem with any of the edits you made, but puffery implies that I was trying to pretty it up, but if what was removed was not written by me, then was there really an issue about puffery at all? Aside from that, I totally understand that you may be concerned about genuine neutrality, but I hope you also understand I am not attempting to do any of that. NovembersHeartbeat (talk) 00:59, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Are you referring to this? That was a good edit because it replaced an opinion presented as fact with an opinion presented as opinion, but it looks like the text that was there before then was added by you. --Richard Yin (talk) 01:08, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I initially did it but it was modified by Buff. You took it out entirely. NovembersHeartbeat (talk) 01:17, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Then I don't really understand what you mean by but if what was removed was not written by me, then was there really an issue about puffery at all? since your version is more biased than what I removed. Not that it matters, puffery is puffery regardless of who wrote it. --Richard Yin (talk) 01:22, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What I meant was that it was changed to something else by the admin. That should have been the end of it. If you deleted it as "puffery", you deleted what an admin deemed appropriate. The bottom line is that whatever the admin decided to change was changed. You, then, deleted that modification as puffery on the mistaken belief that it was as I wrote it. Even if I did, that same admin didn't identify it as puffery when he made his edit, but somehow you did. NovembersHeartbeat (talk) 01:36, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, after posting my last reply I went back and restored some of the content in question. Apologies to NovembersHeartbeat and any readers for the unnecessary argument. --Richard Yin (talk) 02:03, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dimanche v. Brown

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

Non-notable, WP:ROTM legal case that is principally created to add credence to Moliere Dimanche (see also: WP:Articles for deletion/Moliere Dimanche and User talk:NovembersHeartbeat)Spiralwidget (talk) 15:04, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Moliere Dimanche

Thank you for initiating this discussion. I would like to address some concerns raised in the nomination statement:

1. Vandalism: This user Spiralwidget has repeatedly vandalized this topic. In his nomination for deletion of the page for Moe Dimanche he states that Dimanche is "prominent" in the case law, and then states that he doesn't know much about "American legal stuff", but projects himself as an expert on legal case notability here. This is vandalism, and in American jurisprudence, Dimanche v. Brown has been cited in 178 new opinions be United States judges. That means this case law helped our highest courts establish new case law, and will continue to do so forever. Virtually every prominent legal publication cites the law for setting precedent, and the 178 citations is just from judges rendering opinions. That doesn't count the many more times litigants have used the citation to protect there positions in our district courts, our appellate courts, and in the Supreme Court of the United States. This is an actual law, and has been one since 2015.

I welcome further discussion on how to improve the article and ensure compliance with Wikipedia's policies. I hope my contributions to Wikipedia demonstrate how serious I am about expanding knowledge in the areas of law and civil rights. I hope to help those looking to navigating complex legal theories and civil rights. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NovembersHeartbeat (talk • contribs) 16:19, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If virtually every prominent legal publication cites the law for setting precedent, can you provide a list of some of them? Ca ^{talk to me!} 21:49, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for taking so long to get back to you. This whole thing just discouraged me from further involvement in being a wikipedia editor altogether. Kind of has me feeling like I'm offending people without meaning to, so forgive me for not seeing your comment. And thank you for being willing to see more about this. So with case law, they're not actually lawsuits. What happens is that when lawsuits are filed in district courts, and somebody gets a ruling they don't like, they appeal to the circuit courts. If the circuit court issues an opinion on the case, and that opinion gets published, it becomes a law, and it is binding. Roe v. Wade started out as a lawsuit, Brady was a lawsuit, Gideon was a lawsuit, but those cases became law after either a circuit court or the Supreme Court published a written opinion to resolve it. I thought that the fact that it was a law made it noteworthy enough. If I didn't include the relevant citations in the article, that's my fault, but here are a few for you to consider. The Human Rights Defense Center issues a publication called Prison Legal News that circulates information about new case law that promotes human rights. In its 26th Edition, they touched on Dimanche v. Brown: https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/news/publications/volume-1-detention-and-corrections-caselaw-catalog-26th-ed-2016/. They spoke about the First Amendment and the use of chemical agents in retaliation against inmates. The citations used in the article demonstrate how prominent organizations cited Dimanche v. Brown to protect their interests, from the ACLU, to the Institute for Justice, Dimanche v. Brown is helpful in arguing what is precedential when it comes to protecting human rights. Columbia University did a piece on improvements to the Prison Litigation Reform Act that can be found here: https://jlm.law.columbia.edu/files/2021/02/21.-Chapter-14.pdf. They state:

"Suppose you follow the grievance rules, but get a grievance decision rejecting your grievance and claiming wrongly that you didn’t follow the rules. Courts have generally been willing to examine incarcerated people’s compliance with the rules independently rather than being bound by what grievance officials say about it."

Here, they cited to Dimanche v. Brown to encourage students and litigants that courts look at the totality of the circumstances instead of taking grievance officials at their word. Additionally, Americans for Effective Law Enforcement, a partner of the Department of Justice, published its monthly law journal on retaliation case law, found here: https://www.aele.org/law/Digests/jailretaliation.html. Dimanche v. Brown was, again, listed as a case where the courts opt to not take prison officials at their word when grievance mechanisms are in question. These are just publications who find helpful laws that can help their readers, but where you will find the true value in the law is here: https://casetext.com/case/dimanche-v-brown-2/how-cited?citingPage=1&sort=relevance. It is primarily for use by attorneys, but as you can see, the law was cited 178 times by courts in the United States as a foundational point to settle law, and its 18 pages of new laws being set with Dimanche v. Brown giving the courts guidance. As you can see, in 2023 the 11th Circuit published another law, Sims v. FDOC (https://casetext.com/case/sims-v-secy-fla-dept-of-corr-1?sort=relevance&resultsNav=false&q=), and the entire section 4 of that law was founded on Dimanche. v. Brown. Keep in mind, Dimanche v. Brown became law 10 years ago, and it was used as a founding point of reason to resolve an entirely new 11th Circuit opinion in 2023. It is a very important case to people who litigate prison civil rights cases. Finally, in its articles on Constitutional Law, Criminal Law, & Government and Administrative Law, Justia published a synopsis on Dimanche v. Brown: https://us11thcircuitcourtofappealsopinions.justia.com/2015/04/18/dimanche-v-brown/. It has its place in civil rights, human rights and prisoner rights litigation, and many litigants rely on it to get justice in their cases because a lot of inmates face retaliation for filing inmate grievances, and when they see that somebody prevailed under the same circumstances, they tell the courts that the 11th Circuit has already recognized how bad the retaliation is in the prisons. NovembersHeartbeat (talk) 21:40, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to compile all the sources. I am sorry for the late response; The notification system didn't seem have worked for some reason. My knowledge in law is very limited, so I can't judge how important the case is. Still, many legal publications have included the case in their, I am guessing, list of precedences, so I would definitely support a section in the Moe Dimanche article. However, most of the above sources are a simple synopsis of case, which one could get simply by reading the court filings. There are not much in terms of secondary analysis in the cited sources. Wikipedia is not a mere compendium of legal cases, so I'd support a merge to its parent article. Ca ^{talk to me!} 07:44, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Law, Police, and United States of America. Skynxnex (talk) 16:56, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG. Cutlass ^Ciera 18:33, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, but I am happy to be proven wrong. I am not well-versed in the laws, so it is possible that I am missing some major source that I could look for coverage. However, a search on Google Scholar, Google, Google News, and Google Books did not return any usable source(that is, reliable and independent). Currently, this article has an WP:original research problem since the topic has zero secondary analysis by reliable sources. This article is also heavily WP:REFBOMBed with primary documents of the lawsuit. Ca ^{talk to me!} 01:58, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I also feel like my essay WP:NPOV deletion applies here, since lawsuits are naturally a contentious topic. Ca ^{talk to me!} 01:59, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The use of a level-3 fake header (same as the real header of the entire AfD) is confusing. Reduced to level 4. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 02:20, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:33, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:10, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unsure - I think ordinarily we might agree on !delete for this kind of thing, on the basis of WP:NOTEVERYTHING and a lack of secondary sources. We are not a legal dictionary. On the other hand.. it feels like laws which affect people are a special case, and there could be a lot of things to assess and !delete on this precedence. There are sources, in particular I think this one shows that the case has been cited many times in other cases. I don't know how to parse this stuff, I'm hoping others with better knowledge and legal nouce can give us direction. JMWt (talk) 11:57, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I am open to changing my vote with the opinion of a legal expert, but I believe this should be kept. The case has been cited 178 times in 10 years. The article does have some issues with original research and puffery, but I believe the article can be improved with someone knowledgeable of law who is not related to the subject. Of possible relevance, I separately voted delete in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moliere Dimanche in part on the basis that the plaintiff is not notable, but the case is notable.--Mpen320 (talk) 17:46, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]