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

D. Christopher Evans

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

I found no significant coverage after multiple searches. The current three sources in the article are an Access Denied page to the subject's non-independent biography, an article by the subject, and a local article about him being appointed. SL93 (talk) 03:39, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:GNG per these sources found and added to the article [1][2]. These sources give sigcov and seem credible to pass for notability. Ednabrenze (talk) 08:14, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The first source was already in the article, and both sources are routine coverage. Both sources are just announcements of what the subject did in in his career - being hired and forming his team. SL93 (talk) 08:59, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:08, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Being denied access to a source in not a proper reason for deleting an article. The source is still available in an archive (now added]. I find the coverage to be significant and dealing with more than routine about his career progression. Thincat (talk) 11:17, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thincat The access denied thing isn’t why it is a bad source, but rather that it isn’t independent coverage. SL93 (talk) 11:33, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in itself it doesn't contribute much, if anything, towards notability but it provides some sufficiently verified information. Taken as a whole there is enough adequate information for a stub BLP. Personally, I prefer AFD discussions to include only matters that are relevant to article deletion but I realise that some people are not so well aware of our standards or they regard discussions as adversarial rather than inquisitorial. Thincat (talk) 12:00, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eunkyong Choi

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

Subject does not meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV from reliable independent sources, nor meet WP:JUDGE. Special trial judges are mere employees of the court they sit on and are not Senate confirmed positions, similar to magistrate judges. The first source is a blog, the second is a press release, the third is Ballotpedia, and the last one is independent but lacks depth. Let'srun (talk) 22:14, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Law, Missouri, New York, and Washington, D.C.. Let'srun (talk) 22:14, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stella Assange

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

Subject fails WP:ANYBIO. Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. Any coverage of her that would be used to establish notability is only in the context of her relationship with Julian Assange, including the sourcing currently in the article. She is not independently notable. Longhornsg (talk) 19:22, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, Politics, Spain, and Sweden. Longhornsg (talk) 19:22, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Stella Assange just spent the last 13 years of her life securing Julian Assange's freedom. This represents a significant legal victory, and indeed, would be considered a considerable career achievement for any attorney. The fact that she is also Julian's wife does not detract from the significance or notability of this accomplishment. Were Stella only Julian's wife and not his attorney, I'd agree that she's not independently notable. However, her legal accomplishment is what makes her notable, rather than her marital status. If you were to strip away the fact that she's Assange's wife, then it seems you'd have to admit that her legal accomplishments and advocacy make her notable. Ben.Gowar (talk) 20:04, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: coverage is strictly sourced to Julian Assange articles, or to stories about their family. I don't see notability outside of the Julian Assange connection, so nothing needing an article. Oaktree b (talk) 00:09, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A factual article about a notable woman. Published author. Sourced and referenced. Wikipedia stop eating your tail and deleting good encyclopaedic content. Firefishy (talk) 01:50, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sources are third party and reliable. Her work is source checked and notable. Per WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 08:12, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article is well referenced, enough to pass the WP:SIGCOV bar. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 16:08, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. None of the keep votes substantively address that the coverage of Stella Assange is not independently but due to her relationship with Julian Assange. Longhornsg (talk) 19:03, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My Keep vote certainly does. You emphasize "her relationship" while failing to acknowledge that the aforementioned relationship is one of attorney-client. She has won a significant victory in helping Julian Assange gain his freedom. The press has treated this as a historic event. You act like she did no work to win this battle and is merely garnering attention because she is the spouse of someone famous. This page has nearly 700,000 views. It should not be deleted. People want information on this attorney. Ben.Gowar (talk) 03:18, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are certainly articles where she is the primary focus, rather than Julian Assange, so she may not fail on WP:ANYBIO. Also, I buy the argument that she is a lawyer and author. Agreed, the subject of her work is primarily a well-known guy who happens to be her husband, but this doesn't negate her work. Even without this, she might pass under the description of WP:NOTINHERITED where it says, Individuals in close, personal relationships with famous people (including politicians) can have an independent article even if they are known solely for such a relationship, but only if they pass WP:GNG., based on previous observation that there are articles specifically about her. David Malone (talk) 19:16, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I am not an expert on wikilawyering, but the article appears to add nothing to the Julian Assange article (his legal fight and personal life). BorisG (talk) 20:18, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article is on Stella Assange. It is a biography that contains information on her early life and education (in addition to her career). Though there is some overlap between this article and the article on Julian Assange, you would anticipate such an overlap between any two biographies on closely related people. Nevertheless, there is indeed additional information in this article about Stella Assange. You seem to have ignored this and fixated on Julian. Ben.Gowar (talk) 01:54, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep First, passes the GNG, there's clearly sources which focus on the subject herself: Stella Moris on her secret family with Julian Assange: ‘He’s unlike anyone I have ever met’ (The Guardian, 16 October 2021), Stella Assange calls on journalists to use FOI system to obtain details on WikiLeaks case (UPI, 27 June 2024). Second, acknowledging that part of the interest in the subject derives from her relationship with Julian Assange, that in itself is not reason not to have an article given the amount of detail on the subject of her role in the campaign to have Assange released, WP:OKFORK. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 07:26, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Firstfruits

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

Sustained, independent coverage in one article. Fails WP:GNG and WP:SUSTAINED. Longhornsg (talk) 21:04, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and Military. Longhornsg (talk) 21:04, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:22, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:11, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cliff Chenfeld

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

Clearly unnotable. All but one of the sources are about his record company or Kidz Bop. The sole source documenting him is an interview. OhHaiMark (talk) 14:14, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Law, United States of America, and Ohio. OhHaiMark (talk) 14:14, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:42, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete: Should be notable with articles such as [3], but I don't find enough to build an article. Oaktree b (talk) 11:58, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage now in the article is mostly about his business ventures, not about him as a person. Oaktree b (talk) 11:59, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]