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.

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

Purge page cache

watch

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

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 redirect‎ to Same-sex marriage in Kentucky. Those arguing to keep provide some evidence of SIGCOV, but this coverage isn't so voluminous that it obviously necessitates a standalone article, and no explicit argument has been provided as to why the material cannot be covered at the parent article. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:31, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kentucky Equality Federation v. Beshear

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

This is one of a WP:Walled garden of articles related to Jordan Palmer (social activist). He has claimed credit for bringing same-sex marriage to Kentucky based on his involvement with this case. As I understand it, though, Bourke v. Beshear was the key Kentucky marriage case. gnu 57 00:07, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Sexuality and gender, and Kentucky. gnu 57 00:08, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I nominated the Palmer article for deletion also; it relies on primary sources or a few press releases. That doesn't help notability here either, but doesn't affect the !vote. Oaktree b (talk) 00:53, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not accurate. It CLEARLY lists newspaper articles. Commonwealth1333 (talk) 16:32, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Two newspaper articles and four or more press releases and primary sources. It does not have a larger number of newspaper articles. I'm sorry, but 4 is the larger number and I stand by my statement. Oaktree b (talk) 03:48, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The C-J is part of USA Today now, and most of the staff has changed, or downsized because it is sadly dying industry, the same with the Herald-Leader. The Herald-Leader has also had lots of data loss from changes serves to AWS, etc. and a lot of information has been lost forever. The same is true with the Courier-Journal. I have an account with both, and articles are completely gone because of management and server changes. I honestly didn't know I still had an account with both newspapers because it is digital only, but even I do not recall the last time I read anything they published.

The Kentucky Post (the domain is now owned by a TV station) and the Kentucky Enquirer are gone (Northern KY) and even EthicsDaily.com which this news article originally referenced (https://news.kyequality.org/2006/12/anti-gay-christians-miss-message.html) are also gone and forwards to another site.

I was at a protest with Jordan Palmer in the early 2000's before that organization was founded; with Fletcher was governor. To make things worse, the Herald Leader used blogs for their top journalists (now gone except for Bill Estep), but the blogs did not survive the transfers (https://bsky.app/profile/BGPolitics this is what is goes to now). Even LEO Weekly does not have articles older than 2014. So, I am done with it. I think this is why the backed-up news on their own, so that it is preserved.

They can do whatever they want to do with the articles in question. My nieces and nephews, in their early 20's have no idea what Wikipedia is nor have they ever read a newspaper, sadly they get their news on TikTok and YouTube's "shorts". This is the end for me and Wikipedia, because it really is getting harder to find sources because of the loss of reporters, and that makes meeting current standards nearly impossible, but does that also mean the history should be deleted? That is for you all to decide. Thank you and all the best to you. Commonwealth1333 (talk) 20:58, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No. Kentucky Equality Federation and Jordan Palmer was a state level case and a critical one because all state judges dismissed challenges to the 2004 Constitutional Amendment. This is the only case that made it through trail. On a federal level, Obergefell v. Hodges recognized same-sex unions, which Jordan Palmer also filed a friend of the court brief on. However, Judge Wingate in Franklin Circuit Court had already ruled that "the rights and freedoms of individuals cannot be usurped, even in the largest majority as granted under the constitution of this Commonwealth." This case is the principal reason Republicans no longer wanted to use the state's seat of government for constitutional cases, and they no longer do. Please KNOW Kentucky LGBT history before nominating anything for deletion. Commonwealth1333 (talk) 16:27, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Knowing WP:RS and WP:N are important for whether or how a subject is covered in the Wikipedia. As someone who does know a lot about Kentucky LGBT history (and many other subjects covered in the Wikipedia), I can clearly state that that knowledge isn't the controlling factor whether an article stays or not. At any rate, this AfD is a process, not a pre-ordained decision. As long as the process was started in good faith, and I believe it has been, Wikipedians are expected to make their case based on policy and guidelines whether the article stays. Having been a Wikipedian for nearly 20 years, I can assure you that casting aspersions on fellow participants does exactly nothing for any case. Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 01:47, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And it actually lowers the chances that the person making the statements will be taken as a valid AfD participant. Continuing to do so can lead to disciplinary sanctions if we aren't here to build an encyclopedia. Let's keep it friendly please, we all understand how important the subject of the article is. Oaktree b (talk) 14:44, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Same-sex marriage in Kentucky, where it is already mentioned. I can't find any sources beyond what is already in the article. Not enough to meet GNG. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 19:33, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Newspapers are going under at a record pace. This article has been unedited for over a decade and just because the cited newspapers are now out of business, the article is still valid. Commonwealth1333 (talk) 00:26, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A newspaper's article from the time of this event should be findable (like via the Wayback Machine), whether or not the newspaper remains in business. There is really no reason this AfD can't be responded to with WP:RS (to demonstrate WP:N) if they ever existed. Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 01:39, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not true. The Northern Kentucky newspaper(s), Northern Kentucky Journal, and the Boone County Journal cannot be found anyplace. However, some coverage from the Louisville Courier Journal and the Lexington Herald Leader have been added. Commonwealth1333 (talk) 23:25, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's almost certain that multiple libraries will have microfiche. —siro χ o 08:35, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's very likely true if these newspapers were online at the time. However, if not, newspapers.com or libraries can be consulted. Overall, though, if you believe particular coverage happened in particular newspapers at particular times, please feel free in providing pointers to where editors can look. Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 02:08, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Lots of comments but please stay focus on what should happen with this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:46, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This subject meets WP:GNG.

From the article, SIGCOV of the filing of this lawsuit [1]
Not yet in article, SIGCOV of the start of the trial [2] (ProQuest metadata confirms this is the trial in question [3])
From the article, SIGCOV of the opinion and outcome of this trial. [4]

—siro χ o 08:53, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The first and last ones look good. #2 is a different case. I'm still not convinced there is enough here to warrant a separate article. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 19:03, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

https://kentuckyequality.org/news/kentucky-equality-federation-sues-the-commonwealth-of-kentucky-for-marriage-equality/, https://www.slideshare.net/kjoshuakoch/governor-beshear, https://www.facebook.com/KYEquality/photos/p.10153373501693563/10153373501693563/?type=1, and the Courier-Journal also referenced the case. Commonwealth1333 (talk) 19:43, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the "same sex marriage in Kentucky" article, there are some mentions of this legal case, but nothing substantial that I see. Should be adequately covered in the article about same sex marriages in the state. Oaktree b (talk) 14:42, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Also, User:Commonwealth1333 is arguing Keep even though they didn't cast a vote.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:54, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have never voted and did not receive the notice to vote. But, my final comments on this are as I told another user:

The C-J is part of USA Today now, and most of the staff has changed, or downsized because it is sadly dying industry, the same with the Herald-Leader. The Herald-Leader has also had lots of data loss from changes serves to AWS, etc. and a lot of information has been lost forever. The same is true with the Courier-Journal. I have an account with both, and articles are completely gone because of management and server changes. I honestly didn't know I still had an account with both newspapers because it is digital only, but even I do not recall the last time I read anything they published.

The Kentucky Post (the domain is now owned by a TV station) and the Kentucky Enquirer are gone (Northern KY) and even EthicsDaily.com which this news article originally referenced (https://news.kyequality.org/2006/12/anti-gay-christians-miss-message.html) are also gone and forwards to another site.

I was at a protest with Jordan Palmer in the early 2000's before that organization was founded; with Fletcher was governor. To make things worse, the Herald Leader used blogs for their top journalists (now gone except for Bill Estep), but the blogs did not survive the transfers (https://bsky.app/profile/BGPolitics this is what is goes to now). Even LEO Weekly does not have articles older than 2014. So, I am done with it. I think this is why the backed-up news on their own, so that it is preserved.

They can do whatever they want to do with the articles in question. My nieces and nephews, in their early 20's have no idea what Wikipedia is nor have they ever read a newspaper, sadly they get their news on TikTok and YouTube's "shorts". This is the end for me and Wikipedia, because it really is getting harder to find sources because of the loss of reporters, and that makes meeting current standards nearly impossible, but does that also mean the history should be deleted? Commonwealth1333 (talk) 20:57, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Same-sex marriage in Kentucky per WP:RS and WP:BALANCE. There's just enough coverage for the treatment it gets in the redirected-to article, but far from enough to merit its own article. I am unable to find any useful source beyond what Siroxo has listed. Also, I was aware and around these parts when all this was happening, and the coverage I most recall was from the organization itself, typically via social media. Bourke v. Beshear this is not. Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 05:28, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there absolutely is. https://kentuckyequality.org/news/kentucky-equality-federation-sues-the-commonwealth-of-kentucky-for-marriage-equality/, https://www.slideshare.net/kjoshuakoch/governor-beshear, https://www.facebook.com/KYEquality/photos/p.10153373501693563/10153373501693563/?type=1, and the Courier-Journal also referenced the case. Commonwealth1333 (talk) 19:42, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We're already aware of the C-J coverage. The other sources provided there don't count toward inclusion. Also, having a couple secondary sources (one for filing, one for opinion) isn't enough for a standalone article, but as I said, it is enough for coverage in a broader article. And that's why it's best this becomes a redirect. Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 20:06, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Just a note, if this article is not Kept, it looks like it will be turned into a Redirect which means the content would be preserved, just in the page history.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:45, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Same-sex marriage in Kentucky per StefenTower's reasoning. Best, GPL93 (talk) 21:16, 20 October 2023 (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 Ex tempore decision. I can't relist this a fourth time, so I am somewhat backed into making a determination on what is closer to consensus here with minimal participation. I find this option as outlined by James500 to be the best way forward. Daniel (talk) 03:41, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oral reasons of the Supreme Court of Canada

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

This is essentially just a list of a certain type of case decided by the Canadian SC. There are no WLs (signifying that none of these cases are particularly important or notable). There are only 3 years, signifying that this is a project someone started and never finished. Ultimately, we do not have any sourcing which would indicate why this list is significant or notable. The mere fact that the SC can decided cases in this way does not mean that we need to have a list of all the times they did so. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 14:30, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Canada. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 14:30, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. The editor who started this ages ago has made some edits recently so this is possibly the best option for now for this in-progress list. —siro χ o 02:42, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have no issue with moving to a draft, but the last substantive and productive edit to this page (by anyone) was in 2006. Highly unlikely anyone is going to pick back up where they left off, and even further, I do not see what this list adds to anything. There is no indication that being decided orally is of any significance that would give rise to a standalone list. 16:57, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 23:14, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:12, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ex tempore decision, which appears to be the parent topic, and merge the first paragraph of the lead (but not the list). Oral judgments of the Canadian courts is certainly a notable topic [5], but the article would probably need to be extensively rewritten to cover it. Supreme court cases are likely to satisfy GNG, but there is no explanation why oral decisions of the court should be listed separately from reserved decisions, and I cannot think of one. The page is a plausible redirect, and draftification never results in improvements. James500 (talk) 06:30, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist to decide between Draftification or a Redirect/Merge combo.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:03, 17 October 2023 (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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:59, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lane v. Holder

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

Not notable: no significant, in-depth coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. This was a gun/Second Amendment lawsuit in the U.S., but it never went anywhere; it was dismissed for lack of legal standing, so it was never adjudicated on the merits. It's not a significant or noteworthy precedent, and no coverage beyond routine. Neutrality^talk 22:14, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:31, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:59, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Non-notable, fails WP:GNG. Sal2100 (talk) 19:44, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:52, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. Sal2100 (talk) 21:41, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No indicia of encyclopedic notability. No indication that this has been widely cited by other cases, studied in law school textbooks, or meets any other criteria we might employ to determine notability of legal cases. BD2412 T 04:28, 6 October 2023 (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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:26, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Gregson

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Dave Gregson

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

non notable. There are some links which prove a party to non-mnotworthy litigation and some self-published work. That is all. Mtaylor848 (talk) 12:59, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Disability, Law, and England. Skynxnex (talk) 01:59, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:46, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:36, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:32, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:47, 10 October 2023 (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 keep‎. Please have a discussion on the article talk page about a possible Rename. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:36, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dangerous & Offensive Trades

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

Does not meet notability criteria, unclear if this is an actual discrete category that multiple laws fall under rather than a common phrase. Kazamzam (talk) 17:09, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and India. Kazamzam (talk) 17:09, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unable to find any reliable sources to establish notability. JoeNMLC (talk) 04:26, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not just in India, but elsewhere in Commonwealth, this is a term for companies that produce bad smells as part of producing animal byproducts. Many more references here. Лисан аль-Гаиб (talk) 15:50, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to Dangerous and offensive trades without predjudice to further moves. Satisfies GNG easily and by a wide margin. This topic has received significant coverage in many books and periodical articles. In addition to the numerous statutes in many countries that have inherited English law because they were formerly part of the Empire, Stephen's Commentaries says that "dangerous and offensive trades" are part of the English common law of public nuisance: [6]. There are a large number of English and Anglo-American law books that have offensive or dangerous or noxious trades or businesses or manufactures as a form of public nuisance: [7] [8] [9] [10]. The precise language varies between different legal writers, but they are talking about the same thing. The said commonwealth etc statutes look like a restatement, codification or reform of the common law of nuisance. James500 (talk) 21:40, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:55, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

keep AS @James500 and @Лисан аль-Гаиб say this is a widespread theme in laws in the Commonwealth and laws regulating noxious trades exist in many, many countries today.

The article was in a sorry state, and as much as I dislike WP:TNT as a proposal I almost suggested it. Instead I've added some meat to the article, reduced the India-focus. As it stands it's barely encyclopedic but certainly enough to pass deletion. More hands would help.

As far as rename, my impression is that the more common term is "offensive trades" but I don't have stats to back that up.

Oblivy (talk) 06:17, 21 September 2023 (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.

Proposed deletions

Cameron Hugh McArthur (via WP:PROD on 11 September 2023)