Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Law

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by JFHJr (talk | contribs) at 00:00, 1 November 2024 (Listing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Isaac Mass.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Shortcuts
Deletion Sorting
Project

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. 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.
  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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 00:55, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Isaac Mass

Isaac Mass (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)

This individual fails WP:ANYBIO and has done so since perhaps 2010. No apparent (nor significant) coverage by any unrelated party. JFHJr (㊟) 00:00, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom UzbukUdash (talk) 05:06, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Mass is still active (the fellow's not yet fifty), and is a political figure in the rural county in which I lived for several years. Further, the article used to be a lot more extensive before rampant page blanking by anon IPs. With that, I doubt many people beyond the city limits of Greenfield, Massachusetts have heard of him, nor that he could meet the GNG. Ravenswing 13:05, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. People in politics aren't "inherently" notable just for existing, so the article's current form is obviously deeply inadequate if it just says that he exists and fails to even specify what political position he ever actually held in the first place — Ravenswing is correct that it's been longer in the past, but that history has him serving only at the municipal and county levels, which is not a free notability pass in the absence of much, much more reliable source coverage about the impact of that work than the article has ever shown. So there's no prior version of this that could be reverted to as a solution, because nothing that was ever in the article before satisfies the requirements of WP:NPOL either. Bearcat (talk) 14:37, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Correct. I did check old versions WP:BEFORE nominating, as this is obviously a gutted article. I also concluded there was no value in restoring any older versions, and the gutted version actualy portrays the subject in his most favorable light. JFHJr (㊟) 23:44, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, agreed: Mass' most prominent role as an elected official was as a city councilor in Greenfield, which is well under NPOL's requirements. Ravenswing 04:19, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Cyberpower7 (talk) 19:55, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Bearcat and Ravenswing. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:57, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Non-notable local lawyer, I don't see any sources for this person. The pages histories have been deleted and re-created so many times, I gave up trying to figure out what a longer version of this article showed... Oaktree b (talk) 21:26, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Nominator) WP:SNOW this process please, any available admin. Let's not waste anyone else's time on this over 6 more days. JFHJr (㊟) 23:57, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If one actually types words into Google, one finds that Mass and his wife are now the owners of the historic Greenfield Garden Cinemas,[1][2] a plausible redirect target per WP:ATD-R. He received a "40 under 40" recognition from a regional business magazine[3] and his various civic appointments have received local coverage,[4] although unfortunately it appears that link rot or paywalls have obfuscated many other news articles from over 10 years ago (essentially a new dark age). --Animalparty! (talk) 04:25, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd think it a pretty implausible redirect, actually. The page has minuscule views over its entire history, the Garden Cinema page doesn't even namedrop Mass, and local namedrops ≠ "significant coverage." Ravenswing 16:24, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand and relate to the "dark age" part of @Animalparty!'s comment. There's a tendency for previously free articles to become dead or paywalled over time, or available only by subscription to proprietary archives, e.g. Proquest. I used to get very frustrated about this re WaPo, but now it's all subscriptionwalled. I've begun manually free-archiving new material in my creations for this reason. If you're here long enough, you see sources vanish. For situations other than this AfD, I try to archive decent sources in prior versions, which are sometimes removed just for being dead. I just didn't see any of that for this subject. YMMV. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 18:45, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Farragher, Thomas (November 14, 2019). "Saving the Garden movie house in Greenfield". Boston Globe.
  2. ^ Olson, Kris (15 April 2021). "Lawyer, wife reopen theater complex bought just before pandemic hit". Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly.
  3. ^ "Isaac Mass". BusinessWest. April 23, 2013. ISSN 1049-9822.
  4. ^ "Greenfield lawyer Isaac Mass appointed to Massachusetts State Ballot Law Commission". masslive.com. 15 March 2012.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. This discussion has been relisted twice with no new participation so I'm closing this discussion as No consensus. There are editors arguing that existing sources and new ones brought to this discussion are sufficient to establish notability and editors who disagree with them. I anticipate this article making a return trip to AFD but please wait a few months, not days, before doing so. Liz Read! Talk! 00:28, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John C. Catlin

John C. Catlin (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)

WP:ROTM lawyer, and no-one knows what a "Blacksmith Mayor" is. This seems to be a soubriquet bestowed upon him by the creating editor, who created one or more walled gardens in and around Carmel-by-the-Sea, with distinctly useless hyperlocal referencing. WP:NOTINHERITED applies - look at the list of people he knew! Fails WP:V, fails WP:BIO, fails WP:NPOLITICIAN, fails WP:GNG. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 10:54, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 20:50, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:00, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 23:18, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Achilleas Dimitriades

Achilleas Dimitriades (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)

BLP of an unsuccessful political candidate. He was eliminated after first round voting in which he got 8%. Fails WP:NPOL and not otherwise notable. Mccapra (talk) 21:50, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 09:46, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commotion Ltd v Rutty

Commotion Ltd v Rutty (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)

Failed a PROD per User:A._B.'s prerogative, but as far as I can find, there are still no reliable sources that talk about this case that aren't just restating the facts of the case, and while I'm no lawyer or otherwise have expertise in the matter, those sources look to be mostly regurgitating anything it can get its hands onto rather that "this case and that case are important for xyz reason". No newspapers that I can find reported on the case at the time or since. Also as an aside, the creator of the page for....some reason, decided to have a very odd and irrelevant image for the infobox, but that's fixable in the case that I've overlooked sources that establish this case's nobility. Akaibu (talk) 22:46, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:45, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 05:20, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: The Google Scholar citations above show many articles discussing this case or how it has been used to advance other legal issues, I think it's notable. Coverage shows it's had a lasting impact on the legal world. Oaktree b (talk) 16:26, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Draftify‎. TOOSOON now but might be notable down the road. Liz Read! Talk! 03:33, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

E-Safety Authority

E-Safety Authority (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)

E-safety authority, has not been formally established. While it has been approved in a cabinet meeting, this does not constitute actual creation. Wikibear47 (talk) 03:36, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Would editors be satisfied with draftification at this point since this just might be TOOSOON?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:48, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Liz, Yes, draftification would be a good idea for now. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 08:30, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. Reverting the non-admin close, and re-closing as an uninvolved administrator in my individual capacity. Owen× ☎ 18:42, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zainal Arifin Mochtar

Zainal Arifin Mochtar (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)

No significant coverage that shows notability. I realize that the sources are non-English but doing my best through Google Translate I think this is likely the best source which looks more like a reprint of a bio. CNMall41 (talk) 07:46, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, JarrahTree. Which sources would you consider significant coverage to show notability here? I will take a look and withdraw the AfD should they be sufficient. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:02, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These are sources I saw but they are not about him. An interview is not independent and the others are him giving an opinion on legal issues. Where is the significant coverage about him?--CNMall41 (talk) 19:33, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is a disagreement over the quality of the sources but I'm not ready to close this as No consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:06, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:41, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:37, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bobo Ajudua

AfDs for this article:
Bobo Ajudua (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)

Closed as delete in AFD just June 2023, the article found its way back again. But nothing has changed. The current sources are 95 percent press statement or covertly sponsored articles announcing new business deals Ednabrenze (talk) 09:26, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already at AFD, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:07, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Sources still don't impress me, I'm not seeing much beyond business deals done and the like. I also don't find much more in RS since the last time we looked at this about a year ago. Not meeting notability requirements. Oaktree b (talk) 14:55, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:44, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to Legislative Competence Order. Star Mississippi 22:51, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

National Assembly for Wales (Representation of the People) Order 2007

National Assembly for Wales (Representation of the People) Order 2007 (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)

There are no secondary sources on the for this page. There are no secondary sources on the specific subject of this page, as far as I can see. There is a page on Legislative Competence Order, which I think would provide a good redirect destination. SqrtLog (talk) 17:22, 20 October 2024 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE. ✗plicit 13:48, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - I see no reason to remove it? There is useful content here. I will go look for some secondary sourcing and coverage, but as an article it sticks very closely to the original LCO. Nothing is lost by leaving it. Flatthew (talk) 13:23, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Have been reading about the order. It appears it essentially governed Conduct in National Assembly elections between 2007 and 2020. That is quite clearly significant enough to be retained. I do not know how whoever wrote this page managed to downplay it's significance as substantially as they did, but I'm working on resolving that now. Flatthew (talk) 13:49, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 17:23, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Not sure what content here would make another article more informative or is otherwise notable enough for inclusion - it seems the order's changes are almost entirely making it consistent with or enabling changes made elsewhere. I think it would be sufficient to include the order in the LCO list (and a redirect would then be appropriate), but doesn't need its own section there. There may be merit to an article on the original 1999 LCO or the 2003 version (if it changed anything major), but I don't think they'd use anything substantial from here. I'll admit I'm not terribly familiar with the conduct of Welsh elections or Welsh politics generally but I'm pretty comfortable assuming that whether a returning officer for an election needs to reside in the constituency for which they are responsible isn't more of a hot button issue there than is suggested by the dearth of secondary sources. Chaste Krassley (talk) 21:46, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 22:38, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Legislative Competence Order (or any other appropriate article) per voorts. I don't find sufficient information for it to be a standalone article, but it could be kept nonetheless in a seperate article. Takipoint123 (talk) 22:41, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. This is an unsatisfactory discussion. People merely assert that the subject is or is not notable, or refer to WP:POLITICIAN which clearly does not apply to party offices. All of this is beside the point. The only relevant arguments are those discussing reliable independent sources that cover the subject in depth, as required per WP:GNG. But almost nobody here attempted to do so. We have one dump of hyperlinks, but they remained undiscussed and appear to be of questionable value. This needs a new discussion focused on the sources. Sandstein 09:44, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Najma Thabsheera

Najma Thabsheera (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:NPOL and WP:GNG TheWikiholic (talk) 14:16, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:GNG Pass , has reliable sources, she is a national level women leader - Spworld2 (talk) 11:48, 18 October 2024 (UTC)— Note to closing admin: Spworld2 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]

The subject’s role as the national vice president of a state-level political party’s youth wing does not automatically meet the notability guidelines under WP:POL, regardless of gender. Furthermore, the available coverage primarily focuses on routine updates about her new positions within the party, which is typical for politicians and thus does not fulfill the criteria for WP:GNG. TheWikiholic (talk) 18:12, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a youth movement of a single party in a state but exists in more than one state [1][2] . Spworld2 (talk) 04:52, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 18:58, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

, [6] (Malayala Manorama). A article who is popular in Kerala as a Muslim woman has won the award. Also a well-known Muslim feminist in Kerala [7] [8][9]. She can be considered as an Advocate/Lawyer, she is one of the women lawyers in Kerala High Court [10] Office holder at Municipality / Taluk level [11] Reference [12] , [13] (The Hindu) and she can be considered Women in positions of power [14] [15] Influencer (Muslim women political influencer) in Kerala [16] [17] - Spworld2 (talk) 05:52, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:04, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Law&oldid=1254643061"