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

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 [1] [2], it is used by law firms to describe their fee structure, [3] [4] [5] and is recognised by the courts [6]. 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]

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]

Baronial Order of Magna Charta

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

I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. Presently, the only references in the article are non-independent. toweli (talk) 17:03, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Law, Organizations, United States of America, and Pennsylvania. toweli (talk) 17:03, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Transaction Advisors

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

If you check the article history, all content is pretty obviously written by employees of the organization that published this journal. It does not seem notable, it was self-published and every source listed is also self-published (their own website or press releases), except for Worldcat which just confirms the journal existed for one year and is archived in one library in the whole world. If you Google it's just unrelated things and self-promotion. Not seeing any legitimate third-party sources to meet Wikipedia inclusion standards. Here2rewrite (talk) 16:24, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academic journals, Finance, Law, Business, Management, and Illinois. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:52, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Neither the article nor web searching provides any evidence of passing WP:GNG (the controlling guideline) nor WP:NJOURNALS. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:08, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I searched Google for sources with "transaction advisors" and "journal" and excluding material on their own website and anything with the PR phrases "prestigious technical journal" and "prestigious new technical journal". It did yield three publications[7][8][9] that cite it as a reference (one, from the snippet displayed, might not have been, but the other two did include its ISSN and did clearly appear to be citing it). That's it. That doesn't seem sufficient to cross the notability threshold. Largoplazo (talk) 22:42, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep It has some financial importance but needs more reliable sources. Without any Improvement with better references will be better to delete it, so my opinion is to Keep it under terms for improvements. Yakov-kobi (talk) 11:15, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a journal it's indexed nowhere, thus fails WP:NJOURNALS. The rest are primary sources/industry puff pieces. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:36, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Naomi Biden

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

The sources, in order:

1. Less-than-exemplary fast facts article about Naomi in Town & Country

2. List of Joe Biden's seven grandchildren, including Naomi, with fast facts in People

3. Celebrity wedding coverage from Cosmopolitan

4. Passing coverage

5. Wedding coverage

6. Wedding coverage

7. Wedding coverage

8. Apparently the same Town & Country fast facts article as #1

9. Passing coverage

10. Passing coverage

11. Wedding coverage (interview)

12. Celebrity gossip in People (coverage of Naomi being in the Hamptons with Tiffany Trump)

13. Coverage of her and Tiffany graduating college

14. Wedding coverage

15. White House press release

16. Wedding coverage

17. Today Show interview with relatives about Joe Biden

18. Wedding coverage

19. White House press release about wedding

20. Wedding coverage

21. Passing mention in coverage of weddings

22. Wedding coverage

23. Juror says Naomi shouldn't have had to testify against Hunter

So, overall, it would appear that Naomi has done little else to gather press coverage than get married. Lots of rich people get married in ceremonies whose rich and famous guests attract gossipy press. That doesn't establish notability. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 05:36, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Law, Police, New York, Pennsylvania, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:40, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And see the similar Articles for deletion/Finnegan Biden ꧁Zanahary꧂ 05:53, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as clearly more notable than Finnegan. Was Finnegan reported in the press for being school chums with a Trump whelp? Did Finnegan testify the trial of Hunter Biden? was Finnegan the first in history to marry on the south lawn of the White House? Hyperbolick (talk) 09:27, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We aren't debating Finnegan, and we don't even know who that is. Oaktree b (talk) 15:04, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. clearly only famous by being related to biden. is not notable on her own and publishing wedding info feels like wp:GOSSIP Bluethricecreamman (talk) 19:27, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not going to push for a keep or delete but if this gets deleted, I don't see many reasons for keeping the page for Tiffany Trump. Killuminator (talk) 22:18, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:INVALIDBIO def applies here I think. The only thing Naomi is famous for is a wedding and being related to Biden.

Tiffany Trump appears.. similar honestly. If she weren't related to Trump, only thing going for her in terms of notability is the instagram posting and social media influencer career paragraph, and thats not much. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 04:44, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: !Keep vote rationale is just WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. There is no standalone notability for the subject related to Biden doesn't guarantee notability. Also, WP:INHERITED. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:15, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 13:27, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I'm not seeing notability on her own, most seems to be drawn from the other Bidens. Somewhat routine career. Most coverage is about her being present when other Biden "things" are happening. Oaktree b (talk) 15:06, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete simple google news search only reveals WP:PASSING mention and the wedding. I doubt it even qualifies for WP:SINGLEEVENT Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 22:28, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

International Franchise Association

AfDs for this article:

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

Article was previously deleted in 2013 after an AfD. Recreated in 2020. I don't see any reason to dispute the result of that AfD; there is still little in-depth coverage cited on this page. Outside of the Supreme Court case (which appears to have been sparsely covered), the only coverage is a few mentions from minor trade publications. I tried looking for more on Google, but all I could find were press releases. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 02:13, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: In-depth coverage from independent and reliable sources is needed to meet WP:GNG. Its small role in a Supreme Court case does not make it notable.--AstridMitch (talk) 04:48, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer: see concerns at ANI that the AFD !votes by AstridMitch, now blocked, are LLM-aided. Abecedare (talk) 20:21, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Washington, D.C.. CptViraj (talk) 04:55, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:06, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Politics. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:07, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:05, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:13, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There's actually quite a bit of WP:SIGCOV in WP:SIRS for this organization, which has received news coverage for its activity on many issues, including local minimum wage mandates (NBC News, CBS News, Entrepreneur, Reuters), joint employer laws/regulation (NYTimes, Wall St. Journal, Entrepreneur, home health aide employment (NYT ed board), IFA's data partnership with the Census Bureau (NBER) -- plus academic articles in Enterprise and Society and Competitiveness Review, and items in the Business Journals and BisNow. Altogether, I see a pass of WP:NORG that didn't exist at the time of the last AfD. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:43, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ara Najarian

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

Non-notable local official. His city council position doesn't satisfy NPOL and he doesn't seem to meet GNG otherwise. Of the 6 sources cited on the page: one is his page on a database of registered lawyers, one is the Ohio Birth Index, one is his resume, one is his campaign website, and one is his bio on the city of Glendale's official website; the only actual news article cited is a WP:ROTM article about an election he ran in. I can't really find anything better on Google. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 00:49, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Purely local coverage [10], [11], confirmation of election wins. Nothing beyond routine coverage. Oaktree b (talk) 01:10, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Law, Transportation, California, and Ohio. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:55, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and keep improving. Easily meets WP:BASIC and likely WP:GNG. (And a little worried that there has been insufficient WP:BEFORE, possibly because there is also a Los Angeles Times sports writer with the same name, so it generates a ton of irrelevant coverage if you don't use additional search parameters.) Najarian has been vocal about advocating Armenian-American issues – Glendale has one of the largest Armenian communities outside Armenia (and this Los Angeles Times article where he is quoted is just the tip of the iceberg) – and an initial 15-minute search yielded coverage of his meetings with the prime minister of Armenia, and he is also frequently covered in the Armenian-American community press extending beyond Glendale. It will take a long time to sort through all the coverage to identify the "best 3", but this is more a case of having to spend time to search, sort, assess and improve, rather than agonizing that this four-time mayor and councilmember of Glendale has been completely ignored by the media outside of Glendale.) Cielquiparle (talk) 06:10, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here is another one: "Najarian gets presidential welcome in Armenia" which appeared in both the Los Angeles Times and the Glendale News-Press. Cielquiparle (talk) 06:23, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not every local official is automatically notable. IT's absolutely worth pointing out that he's received no coverage outside of Glendale. His meeting with the president of Armenia helps, but it doesn't automatically entitle him to a Wikipedia page (even if this meeting was extremely notable, which doesn't seem to be the case, it still wouldn't make Najarian himself notable, per WP:1E). Him being "mentioned" in an LA Times article is also not especially convincing. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 02:26, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's hardly WP:1E if his official visits to Armenia were covered in both 2010 and 2018. Anyway in future I would recommend trying search engines other than Google. A quick Google search will tell you it doesn't function very well anymore as a search engine. Cielquiparle (talk) 03:17, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One can find articles that are more in-depth than mentions by searching site:latimes.com "ara najarian" on Google, such as Ara Najarian tapped as Glendale mayor for the fourth time. toweli (talk) 03:30, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Toweli: I wouldn't call that "in-depth" coverage, it's a pretty short article about him becoming mayor. Seems pretty run of the mill to me. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 04:58, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say that it was in-depth, I said that it was more in-depth than mentions. I'm not sure whether he's notable or not, because I haven't really looked much. That's why I didn't write "keep". toweli (talk) 05:01, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 05:07, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A review of newly found sources would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:47, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus and different interpretations of the sources available. I'll try one more relisting to see if we can get additional participation here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:08, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]