Langbahn Team – Weltmeisterschaft

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:
  1. and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
  2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Law|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
Removing a closed AfD discussion
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Law. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.


Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
Purge page cache watch

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

See also: Crime-related deletions.


Law

Alison Raeside

Alison Raeside (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not pass WP:JUDGE or NBASIC. She is a family court judge. GNG is not fulfilled, as all other sourcing that is not passing is WP:BLP1E, the Murder of Sara Sharif case. Could be merged or redirected there. Other than passing notice and the one event which she was criticized for, there is nothing really to say. No source goes in depth in her as a person. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:40, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect — seconding per nominator. That said; In my opinion, there is notability, here, concerning the judge(s) and the original legal decision to shield their names, which was then reversed on-appeal. However, I agree with the nominator, that this is not a qualifier for an article proper. It should re-direct to the murder of Sara Sharif case. In-context, this issue is notable. Sans context, this is a fairly standard legal decision that is made regularly concerning a judge who’s position does not automatically confer notability per WP:JUDGE. Failing consensus on a merge/redirect, I would proffer a weak delete; My only hesitation is that this appears to be a somewhat ongoing topic, so I would hesitate to apply BLP1E. That said, articles can always be re-created, if-needed. MWFwiki (talk) 02:11, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Law, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:38, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as ATD for someone who lacks notability today but a potential search term, and to retain article history. The criticism from Vos MR is just weeks old, no clear ripple effects on her or her reputation, so it looks like BP1E. Because of the anonymity order I think her involvement in the case (or anything else particularly noteworthy about her) wouldn't have any reporting prior to a few weeks ago. Oblivy (talk) 07:55, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chaz Rainey

Chaz Rainey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promotional biography for a non-notable showbiz lawyer. Contested draftification; moved back to mainspace without improvements. Sources do not support WP:GNG, WP:NBIO or even WP:NPRODUCER as the films he has produced are not notable. The sources are WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs in coverage of other subjects: ([1], [2], [3], [4]), affiliated, non-independent sources: ([5], [6], his own website); and an LA Times reference, but it's in the sponsored/business directory section, not independent news coverage ([7]). Nothing else found in BEFORE search. Dclemens1971 (talk) 04:15, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Frank LaBuda

Frank LaBuda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Local judge fails WP:NPOL, and the article reads like a series of controversies reported by a small-town newspaper. Novemberjazz 16:02, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Treaty of Nice (1892)

Treaty of Nice (1892) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Only source is a dead link, never archived. I can't find any mentions of an 1892 secret treaty between France and Italy anywhere else on the web, only Wikipedia mirrors. I can't confidently say it must not be a real thing. The idea of a secret treaty existing is not outside the realms of possibility - Italy was an unenthusasitc member of the Triple Alliance - but the closest I can find to any mention of it on the web is commercial agreements and general reapproachment in this thesis.[1] If there are any French or Italian speakers who can validate whether this article is real or not, please do. //Lollipoplollipoplollipop::talk 14:55, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Rhodes, Nancy Anne Nickerson (1972). "Franco-Italian relations from the Triple Alliance of 1882 to the Franco-Italian commercial agreement of 1898". {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)

Alejandro Hernandez (lawyer)

Alejandro Hernandez (lawyer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lawyer article without a claim to notability. Note that the article did cite some articles in the past[8] that included local Victoria TX media quoting this gentleman. On my reading nothing other than a local top lawyer award and quotes from him about his clients and cases, which seem non-notable (and if the cases/clients were notable any effect would be inherited at best). Oblivy (talk) 00:46, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

United Nations Security Council Resolution 600

United Nations Security Council Resolution 600 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Is every UN resolution inherently notable? This article has only one source, and perhaps it and other articles on UNSC resolutions that could easily be summarized should be redirected to a parent article. PlotinusEnjoyer (talk) 05:38, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. PlotinusEnjoyer (talk) 05:38, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In general, I would say that all UNSC resolutions are per se notable, but it is not completely unreasonable to ask the question from time to time regarding specific ones (although notwithstanding some WP:BEFORE, please, and bearing in mind that the state of an article does not bear upon notability WP:NEXIST). In this specific circumstance, at the time Nauru was not a member of the UN, which meant it could not access the ICJ without special procedure under advisement of the UNSC to the UNGA. Without this resolution, recommending the conditions the the general assembly should adopt in inviting Nauru to become a state party to the ICJ, Nauru would not ulimately have been able to bring its case against Australia two years later regarding the impact of phosphate mining; Certain Phosphate Lands in Nauru. So there is a certain degree of exceptionalism to this particular resolution (as there is in fact usually with all of them). Further background on the resolution here: [16]. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 10:13, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Environment, Oceania, and Australia. Goldsztajn (talk) 10:16, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Nauru or suitable target.
    @Goldsztajn makes essentially an WP:ITSIMPORTANT argument which can be summarized as being that the resolution led to the accession to the ICJ, which led to the Phosphate case. Which is appealing, except that there seems to be nobody drawing the connection between the UNSC's actions in 1987 and the filing of the suit a few years later. Meaning, for example, a search for (phosphate and nauru and "international court of justice") gets many hits but adding "resolution 600" gets no hits.
    If further sources can be found, happy to reconsider but at this point this article seems likely to contribute about a sentence or two to the Nauru article which is about as much as it demonstrably deserves. Oblivy (talk) 10:58, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • All UNSC resolutions have an effect in internartional law, they form part of the analysis of many aspects of studies of international law. In the case of UNSC resolution 600, the significance is the fact that to date only five countries have become state party to the ICJ statute without being members of the UN. The sourcing already posted about discusses the specific elements relevant to Nauru. Robert Kolb's "The International Court of Justice" (2014) specifically discusses the general circumstances that led to UNSC Resolution 600 (and the others preceeding it). This is also discussed in Zimmerman et al's "The Statute of the International Court of Justice: A Commentary" (2019). The resolution is discussed in Cesare Romano's "The Peaceful Settlement of International Environmental Disputes" (2000). Finally, see Ramon E. Reyes Jr's 1996 article "Nauru v. Australia: The International Fiduciary Duty and the Settlement of Nauru's Claims for Rehabilitation of Its Phosphate Lands" in the New York Law School Journal of International and Comparative Law (Vol. 16, No.s 1&2, p.20): "According to Article 93(2) of the Charter, a state that is not a member of the United Nations may become a party to the Statute on conditions "determined by the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council." After such a recommendation, 'the General Assembly accepted Nauru as a party to the Statute of the ICJ. As a party to the Statute, Nauru was able to bring suit against Australia in the ICJ." Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 22:42, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You make a good argument, which I accept, about the importance of this process that gave Nauru the ability to invoke ICJ jurisdiction. The article is about Resolution 600, however, which is a short statement acknowledging the result. The context and process are not addressed. I looked at Reyes and Romano which discuss the process but not the resolution. For the other two, I've done what should be full-text searches at Google Scholar (article partial title and "resolution 600") and I am not seeing hits.
    An article on the phosphate case would be of value to the Wikipedia, and the ICJ-membership story could be part of that, but on ordinary notability principles I don't see this article as a keep. Oblivy (talk) 07:56, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There's SIGCOV in multiple RS, the GNG is clearly satisfied. I may not have understood you properly, but notability is not based on an assessment of whether "context and process are not addressed", it is based on the existence of sourcing, not the state of the article. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 03:47, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps you did misunderstand, or I didn't explain clearly, or both. My point about the "context and process" was that your citations above are about the chain of events that led to Nauru joining and bringing the phosphate case. The article subject -- the resolution -- is a link in that chain of events not discussed in significant detail in multiple RS's. AFAIK, there is no SIGCOV, no GNG, no extant sourcing about the resolution to rely on for a keep vote. Oblivy (talk) 05:53, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jyoti Singh (judge)

AfDs for this article:
Jyoti Singh (judge) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)} – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not a public figure - Indian judges are not public figures and are bound by code of values not to publicise themselves or to respond to publicity about them. Furthermore there is no SIGNIFICANT COVERAGE and has same rationale as deletion of Navin Chawla (judge) a contemporary equivalent level judge of same court. JudgeMistry (talk) 21:33, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • SUPPORT: It is a very bad idea to have articles on High Court judges of India, especially of the High Court at New Delhi. The nominator is correct that rationale of HMJ Navin Chawla deletion logic should be followed for consistency. Not following that deletion discussion's outcome and reasoning only strengthens the argument that Wikipedia's editorial processes are arbitrary and inconsistent. अधिवक्ता संतोष (talk) 18:31, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • OPPOSE: The second link is a word to word copy paste from the hon'ble judge's official CV on the Delhi High Court website (so irrelevant). The first link is a routine listing because the "roster" of the Delhi High Court changes every 6 months, and in 2024 the hon'ble judge was routinely assigned IP cases, as was also the other judge named. The Delhi High Court decides most of the complex IP cases of India, so this is a busman award for driving busses. FYI, HMJ Ms. Pratibha Singh is acknowledged to be the foremost IP judge of the Delhi High Court. NB: I have a declared conflict of interest being an officer of the court/s in question.अधिवक्ता संतोष (talk) 18:31, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Added references and a bit more info, trying to save the page as she meets criteria for judges. Davidindia (talk) 08:57, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - although she held state wide office (Delhi HC) and was inducted into 50 most influential people by managing IP which adds to her notability but I didn’t find sig cov. In secondary sources apart from her appointment news. TheSlumPanda (talk) 17:23, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: A working judge, I don't see anything that would make this person stand out from the other thousands of judges on the planet. I can only find confirmation of the position, so no sourcing that helps show notability. Oaktree b (talk) 00:21, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She meets WP:NJUDGE as a member of the Delhi High Court: "The Judges of High Court of Delhi (other than the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court) are appointed by the President by warrant under his hand and seal after consultation with the Chief Justice of India, and on the recommendation of the Chief Justice of the High Court of Delhi." RebeccaGreen (talk) 16:24, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • COMMENT: That is only in theory. In practice judges are either elevated from the Delhi Higher Judicial Services after serving as District judges, or handpicked lawyers are discreetly approached to be additional judges of the court. The actual decision is taken by a 5 member collegium of Supreme Court judges in an opaque and discretionary fashion involving horse trading, favouritism and nepotism. The President of India is a rubber stamp (unlike the US of A's). So IMHO Wikipedia can either have well researched articles on all judges of all High Courts or none. These random kind of stubby articles are akin to waving a red rag for bulls. अधिवक्ता संतोष (talk) 18:50, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Strong (attorney)

Maria Strong (attorney) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails GNG. She assumed some positions at the United States Copyright Office, but none of them was extraordinary enough to confer her notability. Even if some positions she held are notable enough to have a stand-alone page, that doesn't automatically make her notable.

  • Keep. She didn't just assume "some positions" at the Copyright Office; she was acting Register of Copyrights, the top position, the head of the entire Copyright Office, with responsibility for all U.S. policy relating to copyright law. I know that "register" sounds like a purely ministerial title, like a county register, but it is the equivalent to a position like the head of the US Patent and Trademark Office. It's just that the USPTO head's title has changed from the mundane U.S. Commissioner of Patents to the more ornate Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property, while the Copyright Office has stuck to its original title. Frankly, each of the registers in the List of registers of copyrights merits an article.
No objection to improving the sourcing.
Disclosure: I'm the editor who initially wrote the article. Frankly, I think it was better -- in content, sourcing and clarity of notability -- in its original form. I agree it should be cleaned up; but not deleted. TJRC (talk) 04:26, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Which policy are you using to back up the notability of this topic? NPOL? If yes then they didn’t merit NPOL#1, the sources itself are neither sufficient to merit NPOL#2. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 04:04, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The United States Copyright Office is very clearly a national agency; and the head of the United States Copyright Office is very clearly someone "who [has] held ... national office" by virtue of holding the office heading that agency. TJRC (talk) 04:54, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The United States Copyright Office is a part of the Library Congress. This is what NPOL#1 says: Politicians and judges who have held international, national, or (for countries with federal or similar systems of government) state/province–wide office, or have been members of legislative bodies at those levels. Which part of NPOL here does she pass? She doesn’t pass NPOL#2 due to lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 08:10, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand the basis for your confusion. Are you saying that the US Copyright Office is not a federal agency? TJRC (talk) 18:33, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Holders of every federal agency is not notable; that’s not what NPOL is about. "Not every appointee (or elected position) automatically passes the bar of WP:BLP/WP:N. I would also note the language in NPOL: "are presumed to be notable" but it doesn't relieve them of the obligation in WP:GNG to have significant coverage in reliable sources. If the position was that important, it would be trivial to find SIGCOV in WP:RS, but that isn't the case. "Presumption" isn't a guarantee, it just means that it is likely you will find sources." Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 20:10, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Arnold Philimon Peter

AfDs for this article:
Arnold Philimon Peter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Soft deleted previously due to lack of in-depth coverage. Still fails WP:GNG. Gheus (talk) 01:19, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Arnold Dix

Arnold Dix (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NPROF ([20]) and is a case of WP:BIO1E. Indian sources are without bylines and are likely paid (WP:NEWSORGINDIA). I suggest to restore the redirect per WP:ATD. Gheus (talk) 23:18, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, Engineering, and Australia. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 00:20, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think? I definitely agree that there's no WP:NPROF pass, but I think he probably passes WP:GNG. He got plenty of coverage in very reliable Australian media sources with no WP:NEWSORGINDIA issues. He got an entire episode of Australian Story, which is a very prominent Australian documentary television program [21]. Other good sources include [22] [23] [24] [25]. I do see the WP:BLP1E concerns, but I don't think he really meets any of the three criteria. There is some coverage of him outside of this event, he's not a low-profile individual (he is frequently quoted or interviewed as an expert about similar incidents), and his role in the incident seems to have been quite significant. Finally, I think in a couple of weeks time he may well meet WP:NAUTHOR. He literally just had a book come out with Simon & Schuster three days ago — I can't find any reviews yet given that it's so new, but it's gotten a fair bit of publicity so I expect we'll probably see enough reviews for an NAUTHOR pass pretty soon. MCE89 (talk) 07:12, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ira Brad Matetsky

AfDs for this article:
Ira Brad Matetsky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I know this subject has survived a previous AfD, but the last one was six years ago and I think the project has leaned a bit more deletionist over time in regards to BLPs. This is something I've run into a few times myself in a Wikipedia-related context (I nominated myself for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hannah Clover and I have written an article about a different Wikipedian since then that I actually think meets our current notability requirements). I think Matetsky's biography is a lot like mine... in that we're not really notable. I took a look at the cited references and the closest any of them gets to WP:GNG is the Princeton one here. My short-lived biography also only had one SIGCOV reference at the time. Everything else is a passing mention. I did my own before and did not find any other sources with more significant coverage (they were just more passing mentions). Deletion might not be the only answer here, a partial merge to the article about ArbCom might make sense, with the subject's name as a redirect. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 05:08, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Well, if the nom is about making comparisons to other articles (which I don't "think" we normally do) I've seen far fewer references in other articles that have been kept... - jc37 10:29, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jc37: Look at the quality of the references. Most literally just list his name and are directory-like entries on websites. I've definitely seen people compare articles/AfDs in an AfD before to show precedent and differences in regards to level of secondary coverage. I'm going to try and keep my commenting at a minimum here but I hope that people try to distance themselves from the Wikipedia aspect and just see this as a normal biography. Is there enough coverage for a standalone biography? I don't think so. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 14:50, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry, but I disagree with your "hand wave" assessment of the page's sources.
    That said, "standalone" biography? Are you intimating that you want to see this listified somewhere? - jc37 16:12, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    In that case, I ask you to give me three sources that demonstrate GNG coverage. As for standalone biography, I did mention the possibility of a partial merge (and then redirect) to ArbCom. The passing mentions of this subject are usually in that context. Kind of like how my name is a redirect. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 16:33, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the clarification. And I see that you adjusted that redirect [26].
    I think there's more to this article than merely his Wikipedia work, notable as it may be.
    Anyway, I really am trying to AGF here, but from what others have noted below, and from the seeming tone of your comments, this is starting to feel like "sour grapes" here.
    I think I'll wait to see what other commenters have to say. - jc37 16:42, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I wasn't referencing that redirect, but the discussion about a standalone article. I'll maintain that this AfD is WP:NOTPOINTY (I'd say everything about that section applies here), but I'm open to other people's perspectives. I started this AfD because I had genuine concerns about notability. I'll note that the previous AfD closed as "no consensus" so it's not like I'm the first person to have this opinion. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 17:38, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I do realize that the timing was probably a dumb decision on my part but it really wasn't intended in any malicious kind of way. I was working on List of Wikipedia people lately. I've been considering the notability of other articles and whether other Wikipedians are notable in their own right. I try really hard not to be a hypocrite and apply consistent standards across the board. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 17:48, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Noting for anyone new to the discussion that I opened this before one of the articles I mention above was nominated for deletion. But I stand by what I said, in that this article really doesn't meet GNG. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 21:30, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Feels a tad bit pointy based on her creation of Tamzin being tagged for notability. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 13:51, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not meant to be pointy, someone mentioned the AfD on the talk page for that article and I think they had a point about notability. I genuinely believe this article isn't notable. The depth of coverage here is even less than that article, which was deleted, so I think that argument holds even more weight. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 14:45, 31 January 2025 (UTC), edited 21:43, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I 100% believe you're acting in good faith here. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 14:08, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete On the whole I find the way redditors are covered compared to Wikipedians disappointing (I think they get more/better press). So I wish someone like Matetsky was notable for his immense contributions to Wikipedia. However, the coverage he has received does not pass notability. None of the sources really offers any indepth biographical coverage of Matetsky. Instead we get passing coverage of him talking about ArbCom, which any number of Wikipedians including myself have, some press coverage of some cases he's been a part of as a lawyer (all lacking WP:SIGCOV of Matetsky as a topic) and various "things on the internet he's done". If this were some 19th Century person I could maybe understand why we would stretch our policies and guidelines to include. But this is a BLP where we shouldn't be stretching things and I do not think he meets our standards for notability and so the right thing would be to delete. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:47, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You say "things done on the internet" like it's a bad thing - welcome to the 21st century : )
    Anyway, I think you left out book and magazine editor as well... - jc37 17:57, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No the "journal" is "things done on the internet". This is not some major journal of note or notability and isn't widely indexed. And truthfully that's how I considered the Baker Street publication but if you want to call it a book that's fine. It's a self published one that also id not notable nor convey notability under WP:NBOOK (the SNG I personally work with the most) Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:16, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Mysterious Press is self-publishing? - jc37 21:41, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure where you're getting Mysterious Press from, but both the Baker Street Almanac and the Greenbag Almanac are published by Greenbag.org, which may not necessarily be self-published, but is a minuscule press, and its publications are unlikely to come close to WP:NBOOK. Contributing to an almanac (or being on its editorial or advisory board) isn't usually considered notable unless the almanac itself is considered notable. Risker (talk) 23:58, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks jc37 and Risker. The danger of trying to get a comment out quickly rather than giving it the time it deserved. I should have written "It's published by a micro poss that is also not one that conveys notability under WP:NBOOK..." Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:03, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    My apologies, let me clarify: I "found" Mysterious Press by looking at the page's references. Here's the link to the company's page: [27]. Here's a link describing them by their current owner: [28] - Mysterious Press was founded in 1975, and was sold to Warner Books in 1989. And here the "about" page for the current parent company: [29]]. I hope this helps. Happy reading : ) - jc37 15:50, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough. I can't open any of the links to Mysterious Press, my security system says it's a corrupted website; and its current owner, Penzler Press, doesn't include the book in its catalogue (nor NYB as one of its authors, but as an editor he probably wouldn't be). Is editing a non-notable compilation a criterion for notability? Risker (talk) 20:36, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Barnes and Noble showing it for sale: [30]. (tried to add Amazon link, but it wouldn't save) - jc37 21:57, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Very nice. Is the book notable? Are there multiple reviews of it, by reputable sources? Risker (talk) 07:47, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the article, keep Newyorkbrad. There are almost no circumstances in which I would consider a Wikipedia editor to be notable, unless they already met notability standards in whatever they do outside of Wikipedia; editing Wikipedia, receiving a Wikipedia/Wikimedia award, being on an Arbcom, or even being quoted in a journalistic article about Wikipedia/Wikimedia does not and should not cross the notability threshold. Risker (talk) 23:58, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm going to expand here, because I do not see how we would consider Ira Brad Matetsky a notable author/editor; neither the works he has published/edited/written nor the journals/almanacs/books he has worked on meet our notability thresholds. I have absolutely no doubt that he is an excellent and highly professional lawyer; nonetheless, his work in this field would not meet our notability thresholds. And I think that it is actually a little bit insulting to the hundreds of thousands of Wikipedians, including many who have been more productive, and have produced more work that has been read by more people than all of the Arbcom pages put together, to suggest that Newyorkbrad is a lynchpin of the project. I say this as someone who has worked closely with NYB, knows him personally as Ira Brad and has enjoyed the pleasure of his company on several occasions, and holds him in the highest personal regard. He is a really good person, and he's done good work here. But none of this makes him notable, and we wouldn't even be having this discussion if he wasn't a popular and well-respected colleague of ours; that article would have been delete years ago. We really do need to stop this navel-gazing. Risker (talk) 07:47, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge to some kind of list or meta-article about Wikipedians/Arbcom. Andre🚐 00:37, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per jc37. Serial (speculates here) 15:23, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Changed from: "Keep per WP:CREATIVE because, due to his extensive ArbCom tenure covering the relatively early years of Wikipedia and extending into more mature years, which has received a fair amount of coverage, and he was the longest-serving member, and he participated in at least one notable case ("notable" meaning: a case about which there is an article—Church of Scientology editing on Wikipedia), and having played a significant role in a notable event on Wikipedia—the discovery of the Jar'Edo Wens hoax (he deleted the hoax), he has played a sufficiently significant role in co-creating the significant and well-known collective work which is Wikipedia (and Wikipedia has been the primary subject of multiple etcetera etcetera) for that role to be considered major and for this article to have some encyclopedic worth. To add: It's possible to write the article, and the article speaks for itself."—Alalch E. 22:59, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • After thinking a bit more about it, I'm switching to delete, as I no longer believe that it's possible to write a reasonable article. While there are corporate biographies, we can't rely on them to the degree needed to flesh out the legal career portion of the article, and mentioning just one case is unsatisfactory.—Alalch E. 09:12, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Do not disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. Carrite (talk) 23:20, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please assume good faith... starship.paint (talk / cont) 08:34, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      • I was VERY polite. For you, this: this is a bad faith nomination in the wake of the Tamzin deletion, in my estimation. The end. Carrite (talk) 04:33, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
        @Carrite, this AfD started 17 hours before Tamzin's AfD started. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:41, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'd like to give the benefit of the doubt to everyone here. I'll remind folks that the initiator of this AfD had a BLP written about her which she herself put up for AfD as she doesn't think she's notable enough for an article, so notability of individual Wikipedians is definitely something to which she has given some serious thought. People can disagree with her assessment, and that's entirely fair. At the same time, Carrite, at the previous AfD for this article, you voted to delete. Could you help us to understand in what way the article has been improved sufficient for you to decide it should be kept this time? I'm not trying to be pointy here, but I think you're only person who's participated in both AfDs, so understanding your change in position may be important for other participants. Risker (talk) 04:53, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I can't see how this article meets notability requirements. As per Risker, Delete the article, keep Newyorkbrad. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 07:19, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. As the article subject, I am neutral, but have posted some thoughts here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:09, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to summarize NYB's salient points here because they feel worth being considered when weighting consensus:
    • He is, as he writes above, neutral about whether he should have an article
    • He notes that he has an article because of his ArbCom work and notes the ways that the sources inadequately source the fact that he is the longest serving Arb and how it now only says this as of 2018 because that's what the WSJ said.
    • The article gives little coverage to his work as a litigator and suggests his career can be summarized by having lost one case over a long career
    • Notes issues with the 2016 "as of" description of involvement in a literary society
    • Fails to include his newest Sherlock book (even while claiming it would bore many people)
    • Concludes with knowledge that his article isn't likely to be vandalized but other similarly notable, or non-notable, BLP may not be so lucky.
    I think I'm fairly summarizing what he wrote there and for me the top line statement that he is claiming to be neutral as an article subject gives rise to a lot of actual concerns as an article subject about the article, which maybe aren't collectively best addressed at an AfD, but do (I feel) deserve weight and consideration when assessing the consensus here. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:51, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:GNG: the sources either contain no significant coverage of the subject or are not independent of him. I join with the others above in saying that deletion would not be a reflection of Newyorkbrad as a member of our online community. arcticocean ■ 19:23, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per jc37 and Alalch E. --JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 19:28, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I like Newyorkbrad, and think he has been an outstanding arb (if not the best) for his work ethic, logic, cogent writing, and perhaps most importantly, empathy. If having a BLP were a reward for being an outstanding Wikipedian, he would absolutely deserve it. But it’s kind of the opposite, isn’t it? Please, please, please read the thoughts he lays out at User:Newyorkbrad/Newyorkbradblog#Thoughts from an AfD subject to understand the problems with piecing together a biographical article about someone about whom no proper biography has been written in reliable sources. You get woefully incomplete and outdated scraps of information that do not cohere into a proper, comprehensive narrative about the man’s life and career. He deserves better than that. If and when there are reliable sources that are sufficient to form a better, more complete picture than is available now, then it would make sense to consider a BLP. But — going solely by the sources — we’re not there yet. 28bytes (talk) 04:01, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the excellent reasons NYB provided in his "blog". Marginally notable NOTEable people with very little actual public info available should not have articles. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:57, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • For borderline BLPs, consider what the subject prefers. In this case he seems to favor deletion. Jehochman Talk 04:47, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Does he favour it? He has said I am staying neutral on whether the article should be kept or deleted which is very difficult to interpret other than as declining to take a position… arcticocean ■ 09:05, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    With BLPs we should take the most cautious approach. He’s formally neutral but Ira’s comments read like a delete argument. Jehochman Talk 16:14, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you both for your interest in my opinion. I did not mean to express a preference for keeping or deletion, but I can see why my comments might be read as doing so; I'll post a few words of clarification there this afternoon I've posted a few more thoughts, though I don't know that they'll help anyone. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:14, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Reviewing the sources in the article, I think they probably are enough to meet the GNG. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:34, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I might get flack for this relisting but I noted in their nomination statement that the nominator suggested a Redirect or Merge to Arbitration Committee (Wikipedia) or, on the other hand, List of Wikipedia people. I'm a big believer in ATD so I am hoping that participants might consider these options along with Delete/Keep choices. This AFD discussion can be closed at any time.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:58, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gaetano Giuseppe Vinci

Gaetano Giuseppe Vinci (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. The article was recently created (not through AfC) by a new editor whose userpage says they know the subject. Vinci's "career" consists of material about one case that is more about the defendant than about Vinci, his lawyer. The sources supporting the material, including a blog (unreliable), have no significant coverage of Vinci. Bbb23 (talk) 16:58, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The "blog" source was removed. Yuriupdates (talk) 18:26, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A new source was added proving the international relevance of the "Marijuana Express" operation. Yuriupdates (talk) 18:49, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - even assuming everything is true, the one criminal case that got into the news seems like a classic case of WP:BLP1E. Many years ago, I represented the Shrimp Lady – the case got widespread coverage and now it's not even on Google News. Every lawyer gets at least one case that gets brief media attention. Bearian (talk) 09:56, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    What I kindly ask is—why cut short the biographical profile of a lawyer who, at such a young age, has already been involved in nationally significant trials, working tirelessly and entirely on his own? He became a lawyer in the minimum time required by law in Italy. Now, imagine for a moment that this was you, many years ago, as a young, ambitious lawyer.
    I say—at this point, the page exists. Trust the process and allow a little time. If things don’t turn out as you wish, then let it be removed. But for now, let’s give it a fair chance, with a bit of common sense.
    Thank you. Yuriupdates (talk) 19:36, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Bbb23, I saw the recent edit in the bio—so, besides the page itself, why are we questioning whether he's even Italian now? Yuriupdates (talk) 19:14, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, the nationality parameter in the infobox is only needed if it is different from the subject's birthplace.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:18, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize. In any case, this news is spreading rapidly in Italy right now. Several interviews will be released by the lawyer, both about this high-profile case (in Italy) and others. The process is taking longer because, in Italy, there are mandatory waiting periods for the reasoning behind court rulings, which restrict lawyers' ability to give interviews. If the page remains, I will personally ensure it is updated accurately, day by day. Yuriupdates (talk) 19:26, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Good evening (to be precise, it's evening in Italy). I have added new details to the lawyer's career regarding an operation involving the Direzione Investigativa Antimafia. Yuriupdates (talk) 19:59, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that the article meets the notability criteria because the subject has received significant coverage from independent and reliable sources, such as La Gazzetta del Mezzogiorno and Il Quotidiano del Sud. Furthermore, the subject has had a recognized impact in the legal sector, as demonstrated by specific achievements. Additionally, there are numerous other high-impact legal cases still ongoing, which will be published as soon as it becomes legally possible to do so. The notability of the subject lie precisely in the fact that it is extremely rare in Italy for such results to be achieved at such a young age. Given these factors, I believe the article should be retained. Yuriupdates (talk) 21:16, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox Beebletalks 23:20, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Preston Grubbs

Preston Grubbs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Tagged for notability since 2021. Currently uses only government websites which are reliable but lack independence from the subject. Time to decide as a community whether or not this meets WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 01:52, 22 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! 03:18, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nadia Shahram

Nadia Shahram (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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]

  1. Watson, Stephen (June 21, 2004). "Iranian professor airs concern, criticism for land of birth". The Buffalo News – via newspapers.com.
  2. Lazzara, Grace A. (Winter 2005). "One Voice - Nadia Shahram fights for equality" (PDF). Hilbert Connections Magazine. Hilbert College. pp. 6–10.
  3. Vogel, Charity (April 25, 2010). "Women in the shadows Attorney Nadia Shahram's novel tells the true stories of Iranian women exploited by 'temporary marriage'". The Buffalo News. Archived from the original on 2016-03-08.
  • Comment: Thank you for adding non-primary sources to the article and the overall improvements you have made to it. I don't think I can access source [1] but based on the title it sounds like potential sigcov. And [3] definitely is. However I am uncertain if [2] qualifies as an independent source, since the subject was an adjunct professor at Hilbert College from 2001-2007 and the magazine featuring her was published in 2005. InsomniaOpossum (talk) 22:32, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox Beebletalks 22:06, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It should be deleted because it doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Despite a few references, most of the coverage is either too minor or doesn't offer significant independent insights into Nadia Shahram's career. The sources listed, such as a 2005 alumni magazine and brief mentions in larger outlets like Fox News, are not enough to establish her as a notable figure. Even with some recent improvements and additional sources, the overall coverage is still limited and mostly self-promotional or not directly about her work, which doesn't rise to the level required for inclusion on Wikipedia. Taha Danesh (talk) 21:23, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:35, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. This is a tough one. There are a lot of passing mentions, but ultimately I don't see enough secondary coverage for GNG, and I don't see enough of her opinions being cited to meet the spirit of NACADEMIC, and her novel has no independent coverage that I can see at all, so there isn't enough to meet NAUTHOR. Taken together there is enough marginal evidence of notability to put me on the fence, but the promotional intent and NOTCV violations push me toward "delete". Ultimately I don't see much that separates her from the average professor of law. Vanamonde93 (talk) 23:44, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dmitry G. Gorin

Dmitry G. Gorin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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]

Just a lawyer with some celebrity cases. My vote to delete is unchanged. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:17, 6 February 2025 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep: The article demonstrates Dmitry G. Gorin's notability through his extensive legal career, including high-profile cases, academic roles at UCLA and Pepperdine University, and public impact in the legal field. His involvement in cases with significant media coverage and his contributions as an educator meet Wikipedia's general notability guidelines and warrant retention of the article. Thecoolfactfinder (talk) 09:00, 25 January 2025 (UTC) — username (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    Just being involved in high profile cases and having positions at universities is not enough to make him automatically notable. He has to also meet either WP:GNG or WP:NPROF, and I don't really see anything in the article that demonstrates that. BuySomeApples (talk) 17:36, 28 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:

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]

He shows up in a lot of search results and was involved in notable court cases, but neither of those things make him individually notable. Being senior deputy DA is also not a position that makes a person automatically notable. You need to find RSes that are about him and don't just briefly mention or quote him. BuySomeApples (talk) 17:36, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @BuySomeApples, UCLA source and the Daily Journal article both provide in-depth, independent, and reliable coverage, which meets the basic notability requirement of two strong sources. Considering his multiple notable cases (some of them with their own Wikipedia pages) and his public service as a District Attorney for Los Angeles County, I view this attorney as clearly notable.50.39.138.50 (talk) 05:38, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No, the UCLA source is not independent as he has worked there. JoelleJay (talk) 19:03, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don’t agree. UCLA is one of the most respected academic institutions in the United States, with stringent standards for verification and accountability. Nothing on that page appeared promotional or unsubstantiated by other sources. I stand by my opinion unless you can show evidence that UCLA has published promotional material about its lecturers and provide a few examples.--50.39.138.50 (talk) 20:34, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You are conflating reliability with independence. There is well-established consensus that content from an employer about its employees is never independent. This is stated in WP:N: "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it., NPROF: non-independent sources, such as official institutional and professional sources, and NBIO: Thus, entries in biographical dictionaries that accept self-nominations (such as the Marquis Who's Who) do not contribute toward notability, nor do web pages about an organization's own staff or members. There is no scenario where an employer doesn't count as being "affiliated" with an employee. JoelleJay (talk) 01:19, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    How about this policy on Wikipedia:
  • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules
  • WP:BUREAUCRACY
  • WP:5P5
  • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_and_spirit_of_the_law

Wikipedia has never strictly adhered to rigid rules without exceptions. Common sense often takes precedence over rigid rule-following, and each situation should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Specifically, we need in-depth coverage and verifiability to ensure that facts are presented neutrally and can be confirmed by reliable sources. This is exactly the case for UCLA's page. No one disputes that UCLA is a respected institution, and I have not encountered any information published by UCLA about their lecturers that cannot be verified. Regarding Mr. Gorin, I thoroughly checked his UCLA profile, and all the information—his education, role as an Attorney, and other basic biographical facts—can be verified through multiple sources.

I have shared my opinion on this matter and have no interest in further discussing it.--50.39.138.50 (talk) 02:09, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep In my opinion, the article meets WP:GNG. What coverage of a lawyer's activities do we need? To the sources already cited in the article, I can add this one: Gorin Selected to the 2021 Top 100 Super Lawyers in Southern California [32]. Moreover, in media outlets such as the NY Times [33], CBS [https//www.cbsnews.com/losangeles/news/los-angeles-deputy-mayor-brian-williams-fbi-search-bomb-threat-against-city-hall/], and TMZ [34], he provides commentary on high-profile cases he handled at the time. In articles from The Guardian [35] and the Daily Journal [36], he comments on other significant cases. It’s clear that articles about cases he worked on won’t necessarily detail his personal life. The notable cases are what defines the lawyer. Tau Corvi (talk) 13:44, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I get that most lawyers who work on high profile cases won't have a lot of articles written about them, the articles will usually focus on the cases. What that means is that most of those lawyers aren't notable, it doesn't mean that the standards for lawyers are lower than other figures. BuySomeApples (talk) 17:36, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. None of this person's roles contribute whatsoever to notability. Lawyers can only achieve notability through either significant coverage of them in independent secondary RS, or through academic impact as established by C1. Quotations from the subject never count toward GNG, and that is the entirety of the coverage linked above with the exception of the "best lawyers" press release, which obviously fails independence. JoelleJay (talk) 01:58, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 06:13, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The article meets basic criteria for notability as per WP:GNG – we have two in-depth sources here, this, and this, with the former providing sufficient amount of information on the biography. In addition, with multiple sources covering the cases led by Gorin, it is safe to assume that the subject is notable. Baruzza (talk) 12:55, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The UCLA source is obviously not independent. The Daily Journal one looks good if it's truly independent (it reads like a paid-for advertorial, and the site offers ways to "submit your news"), but even so we need multiple sources of IRS SIGCOV to meet GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 23:41, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Based on the reviewed sources, the page meets general notability criteria. Subject's decades-long public role as a District Attorney in Los Angeles County and the notable cases he has overseen confirm his significance. Silvymaro (talk) 20:31, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Silvymaro, which reviewed sources are independent, secondary, and SIGCOV? JoelleJay (talk) 04:21, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 07:01, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The point of requiring independence has nothing to do with reliability. Independent sources are required to demonstrate that people other than those affiliated with the subject have taken notice of the subject and written in detail on them. They are also required to ensure an NPOV article can be written, as connected sources will have a clear bias. No matter how extensive and reliable its coverage, a non-independent source can never be used to meet GNG.
If you're going to claim IAR now, it's up to you to show how a BLP based substantially around what the subject's employer has to say is so beneficial to the encyclopedia that we should ignore WP:N and WP:NPOV. JoelleJay (talk) 21:08, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of law enforcement agencies on Long Island

List of law enforcement agencies on Long Island (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Also nominating:

Law enforcement in Westchester County (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Law enforcement in New York City (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:18, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cameron Dewe. The NY state article is monstrously sized already. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:48, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:59, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Quelle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3AWikiProject_Deletion_sorting%2FLaw