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

Jamal Zougam

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

WP:BLP1E. Merge content where appropriate into 2004 Madrid train bombings, then redirect the page. Longhornsg (talk) 06:05, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Law, Terrorism, and Spain. Longhornsg (talk) 06:05, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment judging from the Spanish article, it's likely that if the main article was brought to FA level comprehensiveness a biography should be written on him per size split reasons, given that he is one of the key figures in one of the deadliest terror attacks ever. So, if this is merged, I would not oppose it being split out again at some time. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:34, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, he does have (not counting life sentences), the third longest prison sentence of all time. I feel that is perhaps a claim to notability. From what I'm looking at an article could definitely be written on him - BLP1E is for low level crimes, not ones that kill nearly 200 people. The other two conditions of the policy are the person being a "low profile individual" (he is not) and that the event not be a SIGNIFICANT historical event in which the role of the person is well documented (he is). So he does not fail BLP1E. With more notorious cases there are often the sources to write both, and the reason he is the one with an article is because he seemed to be one of the more prominent figures. Same reason we have an article on Mohamed Atta. So either keep or merge for now. PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:12, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Morocco. Shellwood (talk) 09:35, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Knowledge Aided Retrieval in Activity Context

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

WP:PROMO and fails WP:GNG. KARNAC was mentioned in one promotional article in 2001 ([1], which was mentioned in WP:PASSING in one Radio Free Europe article 4 years ago, with no update as to whether this software was actually created. Longhornsg (talk) 05:54, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Military, Terrorism, and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 05:54, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is sigcov in a 2009 book for two pages but it is discussed seemingly as a kind of hypothetical-ish thing. Discussed in several books from the 2010s as well, i less lengthy pieces. I would argue it is at least somewhat notable as a proposal - there is a decent amount of newspaper criticism of just the concept. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:45, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Naval Nuclear Propulsion Information

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

Redirect to Controlled Unclassified Information. Wikipedia is WP:NOTDICTIONARY. Mentions of NNPI are solely in this context ([2] [3] [4] [5], not WP:SIGCOV.

NNPI is one of many, many unremarkable categories of Controlled Unclassified Information, to where this article should redirect. Longhornsg (talk) 05:47, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Military, and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 05:47, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Wang

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

A WP:BEFORE did not reveal that the subject meets WP:SIGCOV. PROD was declined. TJMSmith (talk) 01:42, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Finance, and United States of America. TJMSmith (talk) 01:42, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, California, North Carolina, and Virginia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:07, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ali-Nakyea Abdallah

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

Fail WP: Academics Ibjaja055 (talk) 12:39, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Law, and Ghana. Shellwood (talk) 12:52, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

National Security Action Memorandum 235

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

Delete or redirect to Presidency of John F. Kennedy as WP:AtD. One of hundreds of executive actions by President John Kennedy, not all of which have notability as evidenced by their WP:LASTING significance of WP:SIGCOV. There are some passing references [6] [7] in books, but nothing that justifies a standalone article or that can't be covered in better context in the redirect. Longhornsg (talk) 03:19, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Science, and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 03:19, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Military. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:14, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect There's literally no content or secondary sources here, just the text that could be at Wikisource. Next time try PROD or a bold BLAR and see if anyone objects. Reywas92^Talk 16:39, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Purdue Homeland Security Institute

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

Delete or redirect to Purdue University. Not much on this page to salvage for a merge. Fails WP:NORG and coverage is largely WP:ROUTINE. Longhornsg (talk) 00:51, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Law, Terrorism, United States of America, and Indiana. Longhornsg (talk) 00:51, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Purdue University. Found a lot of mentions but no sigcov. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:46, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Guardian (database)

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

Redirect to Federal Bureau of Investigation, where the information is already covered. Database, one of likely hundreds that the FBI uses, is not notable on its own and is better covered on the agency's page. Longhornsg (talk) 00:43, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Military, Politics, Terrorism, and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 00:43, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. C F A 💬 23:08, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Oppression Remedy

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

Found no sigcov on this book. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:56, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Law. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:56, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Couldn't find additional sources, though the search is murky as 'The Oppression Remedy' is a more common term. However, it's also telling that this article has been tagged as unsourced since 2009. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 21:07, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Advokatfirman Vinge

AfDs for this article:

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

No secondary sources explicitly about the company. I can't find any myself either. I don't believe this company meets WP:CORP. This article was discussed in AfD almost 10 years ago, but I believe the editorial interpretation of notability has shifted since then. Niashervin (talk) 14:10, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Companies, Europe, and Sweden. Niashervin (talk) 14:10, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Vinge has been one of the dominant law firms in the Nordic countries since the 1980s. I've added better sources to the article. /Julle (talk) 08:28, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find any of the sources you cited. Is it possible to read them? Are there sources with similar information that are readily accessible? Even when searching the article names directly on Dagens Industri's website I cannot find them. Niashervin (talk) 15:31, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Niashervin: They require access to w:sv:Mediearkivet, which is a paid service (or to printed copies of the newspapers, I suppose). These sources are largely from the late 80s and early 90s; they won't be easily accessible online. Any Wikipedian with a Swedish university account should be able to check them, though, and Wikimedia Sweden is paying for access for some editors. If you lack access to Mediearkivet, I recommend you treat them as you would any printed source. /Julle (talk) 23:25, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how this "legally" will fit Wikipedia's standards of notability, but just for the record:

If it is a requirement to read into a paid archive to find any sources that make an extant company meet WP:GNG then I don't think it should meet it. If this company really is so noteworthy as a massive law firm, there should me modern references to it. But it doesn't seem like there is any exclusive article on it in the last couple of decades, even as it still runs today. Niashervin (talk) 18:14, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per improvements made since nom. Third party good sources. WP:GNG applies.BabbaQ (talk) 13:08, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Illegal deregulation in New York City

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

This article fails WP:NOTESSAY with its argumentative, WP:NPOV tone and non-encyclopedic approach to its subject matter. As an example of WP:NOT, it thus fails part two of WP:GNG. The subject matter is already covered encyclopedically at Rent regulation in New York. (Note on history: this page was draftified as part of New Page Review to give the creator time to revise into an actual article, but the page creator objected to draftification so it has been restored to mainspace and nominated for deletion.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:42, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a POV pushing content fork of Rent regulation in New York. Cullen328 (talk) 02:23, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Law, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:06, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Rent regulation in New York as it is a legitimate sub-topic of that subject. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 18:26, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, the NPOV issues and ESSAY format make this unsuitable for a merge. The title itself is problematic per WP:NDESC, so it's unsuitable as a redirect too. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:22, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dclemens1971: If you disagree with the way the article is written, then it needs clean-up, instead of deletion. The purpose of holding this deletion debate is to consider the notability of the topic of the article, not the way its contents are presented. If you are unhappy with a title of an article then propose a move. My point is that the illegal deregulation of rental housing subject to rent regulation in New York is something that should be covered in that article, so the articles ought to be merged. See WP:NPOVFACT and WP:CFORK. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 19:13, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect. WP:GNG has a two-part test: first, significant coverage in multiple independent, significant, reliable sources, and *second, it does not violate any of the tests under WP:NOT.* My view is that it violates WP:NOTESSAY and its NPOV tone and title make the content ill-suited to a merge or redirect as an AtD. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:18, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this is a two part test. By suggesting a merger, I am saying the article fails the first part of the test, notability, so the second part - WP:NOT - doesn't even come into consideration. If you read the guide to deletion you will note that content issues, such as a non-neutral point of view can be addressed by editing the article text, rather than deletion of the article. This implies that a merger is not simply a copy and paste from one article to another, but a selective process where the best bits of the merging article are curated and merged into the target article to form a cohesive and better target article. A redirect is simply a merger where none of content of the merging article is merged into the target article, often because there is no need to do so. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 07:09, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I still think the title is tendentious but if the consensus is to merge I can accept the redirect. Dclemens1971 (talk) 10:35, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or merge into Rent regulation in New York, per Cameron Dewe's rationale above, with the caveat that there isn't really much to merge. I don't agree with the nom that the title is problematic—rent deregulation is a genuine trend in NYC, not something the page creator made up, and WP:POVTITLE allows "non-neutral but common names" such as this one. – Epicgenius (talk) 22:56, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge My first impression is that this is likely to be POV and we should delete it. Upon a careful read, it's not as bad as I thought it would be but still needs work to render it neutral. Cameron Dewe's merge recommendation seems best to me. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:51, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Rent regulation in New York, per Epicgenius. Svampesky (talk) 17:00, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Cameron Dewe. PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:17, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Refresher

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

No mentions with a Google search and searches on legal glossary websites TheManInTheBlackHat (Talk) 06:19, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. TheManInTheBlackHat (Talk) 06:19, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly sourced. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:14, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A quick web search shows that this is a genuine term term [8] [9], it is used by law firms to describe their fee structure, [10] [11] [12] and is recognised by the courts [13]. But none of that takes this article beyond a DICDEF and the article ought to go for that reason. -- D'n'B-t -- 17:31, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:33, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Soft redirect to wiktionary there is nothing other than a dictionary deifnition here, and there is no reason to expect there ever will be. Walsh90210 (talk) 19:51, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Martha Mbugua

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

No satisfactory sources in the article, and a quick search didn't find any. Note: this was prompted by a request at the help desk on behalf of the subject. ColinFine (talk) 18:03, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, Law, and Kenya. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:49, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also found this in the help desk, for me personally, I suggest keeping the article, my reason is because she co-founded (is that correct?) the biggest law firm in Kenya, and is one of the top 40 most popular women from Kenya.

Thanks, 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 01:49, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:TheNuggeteer, more important than your opinion on this subject is how you would counter the reasons offered in the deletion rationale. What sources support your claim of notability? Please be specific. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:33, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, sources 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 are the sources which prompt me to give the "keep" reply. She does not seem notable outside the business, I'll give you that, but being one of the top 40 women from a country is enough for me.🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 05:46, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TheNuggeteer, please read what Wikipedia means by notable. 2 and 6 do not mention her. 3 and 7 (which are the same source) has a potted biography, but is mostly quoting her. 5 gives me a 404, but judging by its title, I would be amazed if it had significant coverage of her. 8 and 9 give potted biographies, but are almost certainly not independent.

Sources used to establish notability need to meet all three criteria in WP:42. ColinFine (talk) 15:38, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:23, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]