Points of interest related to Law on Wikipedia: Outline – History – Portal – Category – WikiProject – Alerts – Deletions – Stubs – Assessment – To-do

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.

Note that 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 links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Law.

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

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

See also: Crime-related deletions.

Mustapha Ali Busuguma

Mustapha Ali Busuguma (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)

Article about a non-notable politician and lawyer. Doesn't meet WP:NPOL or WP:ANYBIO as lawyer. Sources are basically passing mentions of the subject. Per WP:NPOL being a private secretary to a governor does not confer notability. Jamiebuba (talk) 08:12, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and Nigeria. Jamiebuba (talk) 08:12, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:43, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anne E. Lazarus

Anne E. Lazarus (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 was going to do a Good Article review of this article, but I'm afraid that the subject may not be notable. Beyond primary sources and local news, there isn't much more in-depth coverage of her. And local news reporting is sparse, such as when she won the Philadelphia Bar Association's Sandra Day O’Connor Award or when she was elected to serve as the President Judge. I think she is not notable enough for a separate article from the Superior Court of Pennsylvania article, so a redirect to Superior Court of Pennsylvania would suffice for now until there is enough coverage to recreate the article. Spinixster (chat!) 12:59, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Law, New York, and Pennsylvania. Spinixster (chat!) 12:59, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Strong Keep: First of all, she is on the Superior Court of Pennsylvania. She is NOT on the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. The majority of judges on the Superior Court have their own articles, and Anne is the actual President Judge. So, out of all of the people that already have articles for the Superior Court (and also, literally look at any other Superior or Supreme Court article for states, the majority of the articles about state judges are WAY less sourced than this one). Please read over WP:JUDGE. DocZach (talk) 13:08, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I understand you have strong emotions over this, and yes, I did made a typo that I have fixed. However, part of what you're saying falls under WP:WHATABOUT. Also, if the article does end up as a keep, I do not think it would be a Good article unless more sourcing is found, since it would fail WP:GACR 2 and 3, as some of the sources that this article heavily relies on are primary and there is not much info on what she did in her roles. Spinixster (chat!) 13:46, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  First of all, I do not have strong feelings about this. I have never met this person, and am not very fond of her decisions. Yet, since I am interested in the Superior Court, I have created a fair article for its President. So stop assuming things out of nowhere.

  Second of all, you can remove my good article nomination. I want it retracted, but I don't know how to do that. DocZach (talk) 16:04, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  You can just remove the Good article banner on the talk page. Spinixster (chat!) 01:41, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Being the President of the court passes WP:JUDGE and was reliable cited by [1] and [2] from Altoona Mirror & Pennsylvania Bar Association respectively. The election results was cited well here by Ballotpedia. Furthermore, the subject was a recipient of two awards covered here and here which are local sources in Pennsylvania. There was also a citation here from The Philadelphia Inquirer. I literally can find more than three sources per WP:THREE satisfying reliable sources and citation. I will say the subject have appeared in local sources mainly perhaps based in Pennsylvania. May not attain GA status per finding multiple sources but just three as stub is enough. All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 04:42, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Louis Boetzel

Eric Louis Boetzel (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)

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

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

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

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

Does not meet WP:NPOL or WP:GNG. i can´t find substantive coverage in independent sources. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 15:52, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 15:52, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Florida, New Jersey, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:21, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Satisfies GNG and AUTHOR. Significant coverage in Google Books (including its newspaper archive eg [3] etc), Google Scholar, the Internet Archive, in newspapers such as the New York Times, and elsewhere. Eric Boetzel was joint author of The Light in the Sky (1929) [4], which has multiple periodical book reviews in The New York Evening Post (Edwin Seaver, 15 June 1929, p 6m), The New York Herald Tribune (30 June 1929, p 14), The New York Times (9 June 1929, p 9) [5], The Ohio State Engineer [6] [7], Amazing Stories [8], London Review of Books [9], Futures Past [10], Music Lovers' Phonograph Monthly Review [11], Music Trade Indicator [12], Book Review Digest [13], and elsewhere [14], and is the subject of articles in numerous annotated bibliographies. Reprinted by Arno Press in 1978 (which implies it is enduringly popular). First novel with a theme song according to Music Trade Indicator (which I assume refers to the vinyl music record that was released to accompany the book). James500 (talk) 09:23, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  All references mentioned above are about the book The Light in the Sky and most are not in-depth, independent reviews. There is no substantive coverage about the person, the co-author Mr. Boetzel. All biographical facts in the article are based on one primary source and one passing mention in the New York Times article. I stick to my opinion that the subject does not pass Wikipedia:Notability nor Wikipedia:Author. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 01:38, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  He very clearly does pass AUTHOR. It is no good claiming that the coverage is of the book, because the whole point of AUTHOR is that authors are notable for their books, and that coverage of the book is coverage of the author. As far as I can see, the sources are in-depth independent reviews. "Substantive coverage about the person" is not required by criteria 3 or 4 of AUTHOR, however some of the reviews do contain substantive coverage of aspects of Boetzel's biography other than the book (and notice that the book is part of his biography and not something separate). The source of the "biographical facts in the article" is irrelevant, because notability does not have anything to do with article content: WP:CONTN. The bottom line is that Boetzel has created and played a major role in creating a significant and well-known work, which has been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles and reviews; and his work has won significant critical attention. On the face if it, he very clearly satisfies WP:AUTHOR. And there is coverage of other aspects of his biography in various sources. We have far more coverage, and we know far more, (not all of which is in the article or this discussion yet), about the "non-literary" aspects of Boetzel's life than we do about Homer's. If we were to delete Boetzel's article on that technicality, we would have to delete Homer next, because we know nothing about Homer apart from the contents of two books. James500 (talk) 04:31, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

American Trial: The Eric Garner Story

American Trial: The Eric Garner Story (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)

Article about a film, not properly referenced as passing WP:NFILM. As always, films are not all "inherently" notable just for existing, and have to meet certain specific criteria to qualify for Wikipedia articles -- noteworthy film awards, a WP:GNG-worthy volume of third-party coverage and analysis (e.g. reviews by professional film critics, etc.) about them, and on and so forth. But the notability claim on offer here is that the film exists, which isn't automatically enough in and of itself, and the referencing is entirely to Q&A interviews in which the filmmaker is talking about her own work in the first person, with absolutely no evidence of independent third-party analysis about the film shown at all.
As it's not a film I'm personally familiar with, I'm perfectly willing to withdraw this if somebody can improve the referencing, but the filmmaker just talking up her own film in her own words doesn't get the film over the notability bar all by itself, if that's all the coverage it has and nobody without a direct personal stake in the film has independently written about or analyzed it in the third person. Bearcat (talk) 19:03, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 19:03, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Law, Police, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:22, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Was WP:BEFORE followed in this nom?

  See the following in-depth coverage, which I found in 20 minutes or so:

  • Defore, John (May 18, 2020). "'American Trial: The Eric Garner Story': Film Review". The Hollywood Reporter. Retrieved March 19, 2024.
  • Choudhury, Bedatri D. (October 11, 2019). "A Movie Envisions the Trial that Eric Garner Never Had". Hyperallergic. Retrieved 2024-03-19.
  • Newcott, Bill (June 4, 2020). "Review: American Trial: The Eric Garner Story — Movies for the Rest of Us with Bill Newcott". The Saturday Evening Post. Retrieved 2024-03-19.
  • Sandoval, Lapacazo (May 21, 2020). "American Trial: The Eric Garner Story". Los Angeles Sentinel. Retrieved March 19, 2024.
  • "AMERICAN TRIAL: THE ERIC GARNER STORY -- An Innovative But Dangerous Hybrid Documentary". disappointment media. Retrieved 2024-03-19.
  • "Eric Garner's widow finds healing in fictional documentary six years after his death". The Washington Post. July 17, 2020. Retrieved 2024-03-19.
  • Moore, Roger (2020-05-18). "Movie Review — "American Trial: The Eric Garner Story"". Movie Nation. Retrieved 2024-03-19.
  • Snipes-Garner, Esaw; Garner, Emerald. "Eric Garner's widow and daughter discuss film 'American Trial'". TODAY.com (Interview). Retrieved 2024-03-19.
  • Ferguson, David (2020-05-21). "'American Trial: The Eric Garner Story' Review". International Policy Digest. Retrieved 2024-03-19.
  • Fafner, Hans Henrik (2020-06-12). "Breaking the blue wall of silence". MODERN TIMES REVIEW. Retrieved 2024-03-19.
  • Rampell, Ed (2020-05-18). "What if They Were Held Accountable?". Progressive.org. Retrieved 2024-03-19.
  • Harris, Shani (2019-11-13). "Eric Garner's Family Pushes for Anti-Chokehold Bill After Screening of American Trial: The Eric Garner Story". The Root. Retrieved 2024-03-19.
  • Anderman, Nirit (June 2, 2020). "New Documentary Offers Delayed Justice for Eric Garner". Haaretz. Retrieved March 19, 2024.

  Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 20:13, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep thanks to Curb Safe Charmer's sources. The Hollywood Reporter and The Saturday Evening Post suffice as nationally recognized reviews, and the coverage in The Los Angeles Sentinel is substantial. Toughpigs (talk) 20:54, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The sources provided by Curb Safe Charmer are more than enough to satisfy WP:SIGCOV. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 00:05, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Plenty of reviews; plenty of coverage. Persingo (talk) 08:31, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

James Briden

James Briden (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 is, of course, local coverage, but I wasn't able to find sources indicating notability. A possible alternative to deletion is a redirect to East Providence, Rhode Island. toweli (talk) 13:29, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Law, United States of America, and Rhode Island. toweli (talk) 13:29, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Can't find any non-independent sourcing showing that either his legal or political career was notable, and East Providence is not large enough to give inherited notability to mayors. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 04:05, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Appears to be little coverage of him beyond the routine and local. AusLondonder (talk) 16:54, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: No coverage beyond local newspapers. HarukaAmaranth ^春_香 12:13, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 21:31, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Being Mortal (film)

Being Mortal (film) (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)

As it stands this film holds no current plans to resume production in the near future, thus no longer satisfying WP:NFF. The film's production history is not extensive enough to me to merit exemption ala Akira (planned film). I attempted restoration back to draftspace to hold it, this was refused so now I must pursue deletion. NFF not satisfied, no guarantee for it to even be revisited, production history not extensive. This does not pass muster for mainspace. Rusted AutoParts 02:17, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nardog: I have taken your talk page deletion of my comment as me not being welcome there. Pinging you to inform of deletion discussion. Rusted AutoParts 02:27, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Events, Law, Sexuality and gender, and United States of America. Skynxnex (talk) 02:22, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Passes WP:NFF as principal photography has begun. This is precisely a case where the production itself is notable, as covered by the cited sources: [15][16][17][18][19]. It is Akira (planned film) that lacks "extensive production history"—in fact it has zero production history—in violation of NFF (but survived two AfDs anyway). If anything, the existence of that article supports keeping this article, not deleting it. Nardog (talk) 02:44, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Umm, the literal first sentence on the article is "Being Mortal is a suspended (really should be rephrased to cancelled) American comedy-drama film written, directed, produced by, and starring Aziz Ansari in what was set to be his feature directorial debut". Whether it had begun or not is moot, it was pretty thoroughly cancelled in the state it had been in, and is not considered a production intended to even happen anymore. NFF is not satisfied in this sense, since the production had issues that ultimately interfered with it's intention to be a released film.

  I had been the one to spearhead the two deletion discussions for Akira. Both times it was deemed notable on it's development/production history. Years and even decades worth of news. Being Mortal does not match that, hence the comparison. All it had really was film announced and some castings. The rest is about the suspending incident, which can just as effectively be covered at Ansari, Murray or both individual Wiki pages. By itself, it absolutely does not pass muster. Rusted AutoParts 02:53, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  We have articles about upcoming films not because we think they will be notable once they're released—which would be WP:CRYSTAL—but because they're already notable. NFF makes no distinction between forthcoming and suspended films. Your speculation on the "intention to be a released film" is OR, CRYSTAL, and irrelevant. Nardog (talk) 03:02, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's absolutely not OR, it's sourced in the article itself. "The filmmakers sought to find a financier and distributor to replace Searchlight to no avail. Ansari reportedly intends (Also love how this is sourced in there, he himself didn't even say this) to revisit Being Mortal", that's not speculation, that's an assertion the production is nonexistent. It was offloaded by it's distributor and ceased production almost two years ago. We aren't using a crystal ball to predict anything and I'm not asserting any kind of original research. And what sets this production apart from other upcoming films is that this is not an upcoming film anymore, and those other films have not been cancelled or suspended or delayed in production. What IS original research however is this edit summary where you assert what the category is for even though your special definition for it is not present in the category's description. Rusted AutoParts 03:09, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Even the Puck source used to highlight Ansari "reportedly intends" to revisit it states the production will not be finished. Rusted AutoParts 03:14, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A precedejt was also established with the film Gore, a film just about done with it's post-production cancelled. It's production history outside of the reason it was cancelled parallels the production history of Being Mortal. Too sparse details about the film, not the reason it was shelved, but the film itself were available, so it didn't meet notability on it's own. Rusted AutoParts 03:20, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:12, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rana Muhammad Akram Khan

Rana Muhammad Akram Khan (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 was nominated for deletion last month however this was kept, not sure why.. maybe because the nom was sock? anyways, this one is clearly promotional BLP about a non-notable advocate. as mentioned in the previous nom, there is no reference that is directly about him. Fails WP:GNG. Saqib (talk) 15:41, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Pakistan. Saqib (talk) 15:41, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Law. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:30, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

no it was held to be ineligible for soft deleted. 175.107.25.226 (talk) 12:12, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He has held state/province–wide office, that is chairman executive of punjab br council, hence clearly passes notability criteria for politicians see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people). Moreover, He is member of legislative body bar council since 2010, it does secondary legislation. Had position held by him was not notable President Zardari and then CM Shehbaz Sharif would not congratulate on his being elected as chairman executive. see https://www.nawaiwaqt.com.pk/E-Paper/Lahore/2010-01-31/page-1/detail-11. This is also a source directly about him. His name is in the headnote. International media coverage further strengthens notability. see https://www.tribuneindia.com/2010/20100808/cth1.htm. if any editior finds anything promotional in this article, the said content may kindly be pointed out and removed. 202.83.170.202 (talk) 08:31, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

President of the Bar Council is not a political position. The article is largely PROMO in its entirety. I'd remove most of it, and then what's left is a simple line or two. I don't see notability here. Oaktree b (talk) 21:36, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

— 202.83.170.202 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 16:12, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: "Licensed lawyer" per one website, about sums it up. NO coverage to indicate anything different for notability than the other thousands of lawyers in the world. Largely confirmation of where he's worked, being a simple bio. Oaktree b (talk) 21:35, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hanna Jonasson

Hanna Jonasson (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)

Subject does not seem notable—all the cited sources do not provide significant coverage, and are instead about Assange, Manning, or Assange's cat. Remsense诉 19:11, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Law, and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:15, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: What does Assange's cat do for this person's notability? She's quoted in the article.. I don't see anything about this person that we'd use for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 23:01, 14 March 2024 (UTC) *[reply]

• Keep Article was made because of red link by @BilledMammal [20] It doesnt matter if articles are about Assange, Manning, or Assange's cat because Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. and If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability Softlem (talk) 11:14, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I disagree in this case, I don't think the sources amount to Jonasson's notability. Remsense诉 17:05, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:31, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]