Hosta

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:

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

Frank Morse (California attorney)

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

Not a notable person. Possible WP:BLP1E. I removed some scandalous content which was unsourced, but presumably mentioned in Larry J. Kolb's book. No other sources. Walsh90210 (talk) 01:47, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Walsh90210 (talk) 01:47, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'm unsure if this is the same individual mentioned here in connection with the 1992 riots in LA [1]; regardless, it's a name drop. What's used in the article now is simply a biography of a working lawyer. I don't see notability and the lack of sourcing doesn't help. Oaktree b (talk) 03:49, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Businesspeople, Law, Massachusetts, and Mississippi. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:14, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've added two cites, one of which seems to be significant coverage, but limited to the beating in Mississippi (no kidnapping mentioned). There's also this which I can't find online.

Associated Press (A.P.), “Beating Charged,” Clarion-Ledger (Jackson MS), October

22, 1964, p. 16. Oblivy (talk) 04:37, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It is barely verifiable (but not through sources contributing to notability) that the 1960s Stanford Frank Morse had the middle name Patrick [2], that the civil rights activist and beating victim was named Frank Morse and was from California, that Frank Patrick Morse is an attorney based in Beverly Hills [3] and was connected to some of the named companies. I could not verify any connection to UC Irvine (COI: my employer). None of the legal work removed from the article nor any of its material after the 1960s looks to make any case at all for notability. All we have left to base an article on is the civil rights story and a long "where are they now" WP:SYNfest. And I don't think we have enough detail on the civil rights story to rise above WP:BIO1E. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:59, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for inability to meet WP:BASIC, and probably WP:BLP1E as well. I was holding off to see if anyone found more sources, but I agree with @David Eppstein this is really a where-are-they-now article for somebody who even at the time was pretty obscure. Happy to reconsider if more sources are found. Oblivy (talk) 14:01, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TriTech Software Systems

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

This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:29, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Companies. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:29, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Police, Software, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:49, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Barr Tribunal

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

This is excessive coverage of a primary source, and should be replaced with a redirect to Death of John Carthy. Walsh90210 (talk) 20:37, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Carthy was in 2007. Walsh90210 (talk) 22:12, 11 June 2024 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 00:08, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Law, and Ireland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:13, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:14, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. Death_of_John_Carthy#The_Barr_Tribunal may be revised as appropriate. Reywas92^Talk 14:13, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Death of John Carthy#The Barr Tribunal per nom. and Reywas92. Sal2100 (talk) 21:23, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Masake

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

An article that doesn't meet WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE. While the notability of Chapter Four Uganda is questioned, I simply may conclude redirecting there per this source. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 19:29, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Africa, and Uganda. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 19:30, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Politics, and Environment. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:38, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Doreen Kyazze

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

I reviewed tis article thrice to determine whether it is considered worthy of a Wikipedia entry. Firstly, I saw there were good sources as though a reviewer will do. I now checked the sources and almost a good percentage weren't reliable per WP:RS. Religion of sources and lack of WP:SIRS definitely defined this type of article.

In second checking for confirmation, I discovered so many sources lined her perhaps a single line other quote while addressing her as a worker at Penal. I would have said this should be redirected to the organisation page but didn't see any advocacy worthy enough for WP:ATD. Another subtle was drive by the award nomination. This cannot be called WP:ANYBIO since it was once nominated and wasn't won (it's is also a lesser award, thus not major like ANYBIO. I've therefore brought this to the table proper discussion. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 19:52, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, Africa, and Uganda. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 19:54, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:07, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The award from the EU seems notable [4] and [5]. I'm ok with the sources given. At least enough for BASIC Oaktree b (talk) 21:08, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Oaktree b, EU human rights award is nothing but a less major award. Though must have come from a notable form EU, but the article bearer was a nominee and was only once. How does that satisfy WP:BASIC? Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 21:58, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I find coverage [6], [7], [8] and [9]. Oaktree b (talk) 22:54, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Oaktree b, the sources you listed all were independent of the Ugandan academic Spire or nearer to that. However, one nominated award is never enough for a career that isn't established. For example, a writer that has written extensively and appeared in reaserch paper may be considered even with the writing and more when nominated for an award like this. In this context, however, the article doesn't meet GNG of her career or any significant impact or SIGCOV of her advocacy ad work. Arguing about an award that is not even won is likely biased for me. It's simply a reminder! Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 23:37, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Anwarul Haque

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

Failed WP:GNG. Nothing significant except an obituary Ontor22 (talk) 06:35, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:NJUDGE BrigadierG (talk) 13:54, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:JUDGE as a judge on the supreme court.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 15:45, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Bangladesh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:05, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ His becoming a Supreme Court judge cannot be found in any independent sources. Non-notable person. Ontor22 (talk) 17:45, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is not true. Multiple sources used in the article, from reliable newspapers, identify him as a judge in the High Court Division of the Bangladesh Supreme Court. You nominating the article is a vote for deletion; you do not have to make a bold recommendation.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 01:16, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:JUDGE. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:28, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hugh James (law firm)

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

Coverage in the sources given and my before search are routine for a law firm, such as opening new offices, new hires etc. The coverage in Legal 500 etc. applies to any law firm worth its salt, and I think it is being well established that appearing in a ranking doesn't make a company notable. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 14:26, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Wales. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 14:26, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:41, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies GNG with significant coverage in national newspapers and other sources. There is very extensive coverage in The Times. There is also coverage in The Financial Times, The Daily Telegraph, The Independent, and The Guardian. There is also coverage in The Scotsman and Reuters and The Week. There is very extensive coverage in WalesOnline. There is very extensive coverage in many periodicals and news sources in Google News. There is a very large number of news and periodical articles that are entirely about this firm. The last time I checked, it is not routine for any British law firm to receive the exceptionally large volume of coverage this one has. That is not surprising because most British law firms are not as large as this one. It is or was the largest Welsh law firm: [10]. James500 (talk) 00:15, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@James500: There are 87 mentions of the firm in The Times, though one is not about the law firm. Which of those do you consider to be in depth, independent, secondary coverage? Four of those are articles by Alan Collins, a partner at the firm who is also a columnist at The Times, e.g. this. Most of the others are quotations. The article you linked to is four paragraphs about them, as part of 200 Best Law Firms 2019. Please cite some of the best examples? Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 15:06, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I was not aware of Alan Collins. It will take me time to do a write up of the available sources. I have a lot to do at the moment. However, we could sidestep this altogether by a page move to Lawyers in Wales, Legal profession in Wales, Legal sector in Wales, Law firms in Wales or something like that, followed by a rewrite. That would satisfy GNG beyond argument eg [11] and other sources, including more modern ones. James500 (talk) 02:52, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, on the basis of multiple articles in general Wales business media, such as Business Live, or the general news outlet Wales Online [12], for example. Admittedly the article is currently poorly sourced but there is ample opportunity to add reliable citations if required. Sionk (talk) 19:05, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Khandoker Musa Khaled

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

No significant and independent coverage. Does not meet the conditions of WP:JUDGE Ontor22 (talk) 06:12, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Bangladesh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:15, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep pretty clearly meets WP:JUDGE, sitting on a country's supreme court constitutes "national, or (for countries with federal or similar systems of government) state/province–wide office" BrigadierG (talk) 13:55, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:JUDGE.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 15:45, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The person should be referred by reliable and independent sources whether he is a Supreme Court judge, national or state based. The current article has nothing of this in the reference section. Failure to establish notability. Ontor22 (talk) 17:35, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is not true. Multiple sources used in the article, from reliable newspapers, identify him as a judge in the High Court Division of the Bangladesh Supreme Court. The third source is the article, Five additional judges of HC get job confirmation, which includes the subject.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 01:18, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:JUDGE. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:28, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aloy Ejimakor

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

This subject fails WP:GNG as well as WP:ANYBIO because he is not the actual subject of significant in-depth coverage by multiple independent reliable sources. He is mentioned in sources covering other topics. That's not enough. JFHJr (㊟) 05:23, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Nigeria. JFHJr (㊟) 05:23, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:05, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (Not vote) The subject was mentioned on multiple RS but not in-depth. He may meet Wikipedia:Verifiability, WP:RS but doesn't meet Wikipedia:Notability as his private life (in-depth) wasn't covered sources. Cheers, (Chat With Term)talk 05:39, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How does he meet WP:N? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:48, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per your points, let's add WP:CRYSTAL and WP:TOOSOON. Thank you, War Term. JFHJr (㊟) 05:52, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (edit conflict) per sources used, they are all "Ejimakor says", but that is not what we're after per WP:N. One mentioned "American trained Lawyer", but that's not enough. Vanguard is probably an ok source, not sure about the other 2.

He should probably be mentioned at Nnamdi_Kanu#Insurgency_and_second_arrest, "As of 2024, Kanu's lead counsel is..." Something like that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:48, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I retract the WP:N comment. What about the other two? @Gråbergs Gråa Sång @JFHJr (Chat With Term)talk 06:16, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If WP:N fails, they're not very relevant for this discussion. No WP:N, no article. Existing is not enough. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:19, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

War Term: If you're the creator and you're retracting N, why not change your vote to speedy delete? JFHJr (㊟) 06:21, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge While the article may meet Wikipedia:Verifiability and WP:RS, it doesn't meet WP:N at the moment. I suggest deleting and merging to Nnamdi_Kanu#Insurgency and second arrest as it should be Wikipedia:TOOSOON per the comment of @Gråbergs Gråa Sång (Chat With Term)talk 07:33, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect seems at worst harmless, I added a mention of him at [13]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:25, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 11:47, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mahender Singh Tawar

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

Minor Indian bureaucrate fails WP:GNG, WP:NBIO, WP:NPOL. No meaningful WP:SIGCOV in any sources; coverage cited in article (and found in BEFORE search) is WP:TRIVIALMENTION of him in the course of reporting on local government activities, and much of it is problematic under WP:NEWSORGINDIA. Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:55, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:25, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete BLP built in routine announcements of promotions and transfers. Mccapra (talk) 06:19, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Looks like a short-lived article about a minor official in India. There just isn't enough independent coverage for inclusion. Waqar💬 17:24, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:26, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails the GNG, no assumed NPOL criteria. microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 19:47, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Registered Agents Inc.

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

The article's primary justification is that it is the parent company for Epik, which is a notable fact already reported directly on the Epik article, and it would not be sufficiently notable otherwise based on WP:INHERITORG. The remaining items mentioned comprise insignificant coverage with only a few cited references focused on the company as the central topic. Those articles appear biased in part, based heavily on gossip, and show that the company provides business registration services to entities that are the reason for the journalistic coverage due to various criminal allegations associated with them. However, being the registration agent for other organizations that did notable or notorious things does not convey notability to Registered Agents. An earlier Talk page discussion regarding the page's questionable notability did not attract any substantive comments in support of retaining it, so I am nominating it for deletion. CapnPhantasm (talk) 21:37, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as there has been sustained and an increasing amount of coverage by WP:RSes, particularly by WP:RSPSOURCES. - Amigao (talk) 21:43, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This separate but closely related deletion discussion may also be relevant here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dan Keen. The consensus was to redirect to Registered Agents Inc.. - Amigao (talk) 01:53, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Politics, Companies, Internet, Idaho, and Wyoming. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:09, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sources don't have to have to be "focused on the company as the central topic" to 'count' towards notability, but whenever we have sources actually focused on the company, then that is a strong indication of notability.
CapnPhantasm, being the registration agent for other organizations that did notable or notorious things does not convey notability to Registered Agents is a sort of WP:ITSIMPORTANT argument in reverse. You are saying that their role isn't (in your opinion) important enough to the events of the day to justify all the attention that the sources dedicated to them. However, we care about whether they got coverage from the world at large. We do not care whether the reason for their coverage seems important to us. If the subject got coverage for enabling something, then the subject got coverage. "Why" or "for what" or "do we agree that they deserved that coverage?" is irrelevant. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:05, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete - Actually, it's not whether the reason for coverage is important to us, but the quality of the coverage and whether it should qualify for inclusion -- simply being mentioned in a number of articles is insufficient. Aside from the lead paragraph which is about its Epik subsidiary, the other items are piggybacked off of this, with most being fairly trivial mentions in the cited references.

To test whether this should be included, imagine that each of the points currently listed in the History subsection was positive, like "Registered Agents has been the agent of record for Apple corporation, the Pulitzer Foundation, IBM, and Chipotle." Such an article would likely get speedy-deleted because simply providing services for someone notable does not make your company automatically notable. There are other articles in the Afd lists right now that are going to get deleted for this very reason. Neutrality suggests this should be treated exactly as it would be if the coverage were totally positive.

Under Wikipedia:ORGSIG the company does not appear to have had any significant culture, society or business -- it looks as though they supply services just like other registered agent companies. If this met the test for notability, then we should add in all business registration agent companies mentioned in the same articles. WmLawson (talk) 05:07, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - After reading through all sources, talk page comments, and comments here, I think the majority of the sources fall into WP:ORGTRIV (single line mentions as registered agent of bad companies; example of something being discussed; or local controversy); the most notable thing the company appears to have done is acquire Epik, a troubled domain registrar with an ugly history, and like the nominator suggested it can't inherit that notability per WP:INHERITORG; and unfortunately, the most significant source is all about alleged misdeeds/practices which WP:ILLCON says can't be used as a basis for an organization's notability. Although I do think this page should go, it does, however, seem like the primary editor has gathered sourcing that could be used to potentially enhance and create new aspects of the Registered Agent and Limited Liability Company pages, as the reporting in several of the sources elaborate extensively on the consequences of blindspots in state business formation statutes.MertenMerten (talk) 09:11, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are cited WP:GREL sources that go well beyond the Epik acquisition and satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH. For instance: "Inside the Shadowy Firm Pushing the Limits of Business Privacy" and "A US Company Enabled a North Korean Scam That Raised Money for WMDs" - Amigao (talk) 22:44, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CapnPhantasm, you previously declared that you have undertaken WP:PAID Wikipedia editing for more than one client of NUANCE Agency, an advertising and marketing firm that you listed as your employer. Any WP:COI to declare here? - Amigao (talk) 22:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrative note: I accidentally deleted this page when I intended to relist it - I have reversed the error and would ask another admin to take any future administrative actions here, as I am now involved due to my mistake. Apologies to those involved in the discussion! —Ganesha811 (talk) 01:52, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 04:58, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Wired, Reuters, Washington Post and Wyoming News Service (a statewide consortium whose work is published in individual papers) sources all clear the bar for WP:NCORP. The sources support this topic being covered in a standalone page with no need to merge into other subjects. Dclemens1971 (talk) 07:59, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Fox (author)

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

Appears to be overly promotional and shows no sign of meeting WP:GNG due to lack of RS. — VORTEX³⁴²⁷ (Talk!) 03:15, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Businesspeople, Entertainment, Finance, Law, Internet, California, Michigan, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:19, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Vortex - We got a notice that this page was flagged for deletion. Great timing as I have been meaning to hopefully update it. The info is old and not entirely accurate as it was written by fans of my books years ago. Can u share any guidance on how we can improve its "notability" to meet Wikipedia standards? Also what is "RS"? You're probably a volunteer so thanks for all the work you do for the Wikipedia community. Scott Nelsonave21 (talk) 20:34, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Scott. Please read this link WP:GNG for the general standards to meet "notability". On Wikipedia, RS stands for "reliable sources". For authors, this commonly includes reviews of your books. None of the sources cited on the article are WP:RS because they are just raw interviews of you, only mention you briefly (see WP:GNG for more info) or are written by Forbes contributors (see this link WP:FORBES for info on deciding what Forbes articles count as RS).

Also, yes, like many editors on Wikipedia, I am a volunteer and edit as a hobby :) — VORTEX³⁴²⁷ (Talk!) 06:33, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mention: @Nelsonave21 — VORTEX³⁴²⁷ (Talk!) 06:33, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, I'm concerned about you saying "We got a notice that this page was flagged for deletion." Just a head's up — if you got an email about this, please be aware that scammers have targeted people whose articles have been deleted or flagged for deletion before (WP:SCAM), offering to restore it or something similar. Most, if not all, of these offers are fradulent. — VORTEX³⁴²⁷ (Talk!) 09:13, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vortex: thank you for this detailed reply. This is super helpful. We will work on it. What is the best way to submit or update? Is there a timeline? Thanks again, including for the accurate warning about the (likely scammy) deletion email we received. Nelsonave21 (talk) 19:02, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nelsonave21: Please see WP:AFD, particularly this line: If you wish for an article to be kept, you can directly improve the article to address the reasons for deletion given in the nomination. You can search [for] reliable sources so that the article meets notability guidelines. AfD discussion like this one are kept open for at least seven days before a decision is made (multiple editors have to give their opinions first before a decision about the consensus can be made, so this discussion will probably go on for longer).

In your case, editing the article yourself would be COI editing, which is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia. However, you can find examples of reliable sources about you or your books and post it here, on this AfD, to prove the article meets WP:GNG. This would prevent deletion. Again, most RS for authors takes the form of book reviews in newspapers, magazines, or periodicals.

If this AfD is closed with consensus to delete the article, the article can be recreated if and only if it satisfies WP:GNG. In this case, I recommend the AfC process, which involves writing a draft article and submitting it for review. — VORTEX³⁴²⁷ (Talk!) 06:19, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've not reviewed the article yet, but while it is normal for an AFD discussion to be closed within a week or a month, don't worry too much about that, you can usually get an admin to restore the contents as a draft or by email if you'd like to work on it. "Deletion" is not generally irreversible. Alpha3031 (t • c) 04:36, 7 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!} 03:31, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The USA Today won't open, the rest are non-RS per Cite Highlighter. Unfortunately, I don't see book reviews, nor much of anything for this person. No notability found, does not pass AUTHOR. Oaktree b (talk) 19:15, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Oaktree, Alpha3031, Vortex3427 and other editors - thanks very much for the followup on this.

We have gathered 100+ links referring to my work supporting startup entrepreneurs over the years, including dozens of book reviews, speaking appearances, and podcasts. We will narrow those down to the more significant ones.

What's the best way to share those links? I know you are volunteers and don't want to burden you, so how can we help best? (Happy to draft a rewrite of the current page for your review but not sure that's allowed.)

Also, many of the bigger name book reviews were from my first book back in 2006-8. It was a pioneering work in the development of Web 2.0 entrepreneurship. We have jpgs and some PDFs of those articles from outlets like the Boston Globe, Philadelphia Inquirer, Toronto Globe & Mail, Orange County Register etc. but unfortunately the old URLs are mostly 404 by now. How best to share those?

Similarly - my books have been translated into many languages around the world. That seems to show they are "notable" also in other languages. We found links to some of those (Turkish, Polish, Vietnamese) but other editions (like Russian and Japanese) are not discoverable via English search engines. We do have screen shots of the cover art, though. Can we share those, too?

Thanks for your help learning how Wikipedia works. I have donated repeatedly in the past but never gotten into the nuts & bolts of it like this.

Scott

p.s. I'm currently working on 2 new books to help startup founders, esp under-represented female, minority, and non-US entrepreneurs. Thank you all for your time. Hopefully we can keep my page alive so its available during those book launches next year. Nelsonave21 (talk) 20:22, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nelsonave21: Yes, please share the PDFs here. — VORTEX³⁴²⁷ (Talk!) 00:36, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, will do. How do we share PDFs here, though? There's no attachments tool in the toolbar.

Thanks. Nelsonave21 (talk) 06:24, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nelsonave21: You'd have to upload it on another website and share the links here. — VORTEX³⁴²⁷ (Talk!) 08:18, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment After scouring the internet for any possible sources, I've found two book reviews and one article that I believe would count towards notability. I've also found four more book reviews, but I'm unsure if the coverage is significant enough to count. Leaving them here for a more experienced editor to assess. — VORTEX³⁴²⁷ (Talk!) 09:20, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again - thanks for your guidance here. And for finding those additional sources. You found coverage I've never seen before!

Below is a list of URLs that are still active online that include some of the coverage of my books and work.

We have also put up a Google Drive folder here: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1j0KUxFYUl4A5qAo3-sKwzr-Z4MBIBIZI?usp=sharing That contains a couple of dozen more press clippings, major market book reviews, foreign book covers, etc. for publicity that has since fallen offline.

If these are helpful, we easily have a lot more from my almost 20 years of serving entrepreneurs if you'd like to see it.

Hopefully that's the right idea for sources.

Please LMK how we can help if we can? It looks like a fair bit of work to parse through those and assign them properly into an article, etc. The article needs updating anyway and we'd be happy to assist.

Thanks again very much for your work here.

Scott

https://antrepreneur.uci.edu/2023/08/07/uci-antrepreneur-center-joins-forces-with-the-oc-startup-council-to-empower-student-entrepreneurs/

https://www.engine.is/news/startupseverywhere-orange-county-calif

https://www.nyjournalofbooks.com/book-review/click-millionaires-work-less-live-more-internet-business-you-love

https://alliancesocal.org/news/2024/03/01/preparing-founders-for-success-and-connections-at-happy-hour-in-irvine/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YO6JdpN17P8

https://www.forbes.com/sites/ericwagner/2012/09/04/click-millionaires-7-secrets-to-less-work-and-more-life/

https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/13132762-click-millionaires

https://www.eofire.com/podcast/scott-fox-of-click-millionaires-interview-with-john-lee-dumas-of-entrepreneur-on-fire-2/

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/58917442-e-riches-2-0

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/108552513-internet-zenginleri

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/44557823-click-millionaires-czyli-internetowi-milionerzy-e-biznes-na-twoich-zasad

https://www.beckman-foundation.org/latest-news/irvine-tech-week/

https://www.revolv3.com/resources/what-makes-orange-county-the-hottest-hub-for-startups-today

https://www.socalentrepreneurship.org/scce-24

https://www.operatepod.com/e/scott-fox-orange-county-startup-council/

https://www.cakeequity.com/podcasts/how-to-raise-first-rounds-scott-fox

https://startupgamechanger.org/speakers/scott-fox/ Nelsonave21 (talk) 06:11, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

M. Firon & Co.

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

I see no reason this is notable. It just seems to be a law firm with no significant coverage. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 02:43, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Companies, and Israel. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:10, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Internationally operating, 8th-largest law firm of Israel with plenty of coverage in 74 (!) years of existence. Easy pass of NORG. Unclear how this could have nevertheless been nominated. gidonb (talk) 03:37, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Gidonb, could you provide a few hebrew RS with sigcov? FortunateSons (talk) 11:01, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I had put a few references in the article when I removed the reference warning. There are plenty of sources out there by the golden NEXIST rule. Nom's It just seems to be a law firm with no significant coverage doesn't convey a solid BEFORE. We can belittle any company or topic by putting "it just seems to be" before, while claiming that there seems to be no SIGCOV. Seems to be is extremely uncommitted. Such nominations are better not made as we have too many nominations already. M. Firon & Co is definitely not just a law firm. It's steadily one of Israel's top 10 law firms (currently number 8) and has been around for 74 years. This was written in the article all along. gidonb (talk) 22:42, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just checking what was added. This from Globes is a company announcement about expanding to Haifa with a merger and contains no "Independent Content", fails WP:ORGIND. this in YNet is another company announcement, this time expanding to Casablanca in Morocco, also fails ORGIND. They're a big firm, as can be seen from the announcements, but that doesn't meet our criteria for notability, we need very specific types of references. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:08, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:27, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:37, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:08, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

V. N. Srinivasa Rao

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

I do not think that this person meets the criteria for notability. I have been unable to find any reference to him other than the The Hindu article (https://web.archive.org/web/20240317044514/https://www.thehindu.com/features/friday-review/history-and-culture/the-lawyer-as-a-writer/article4683660.ece), which just effectively said it was nice to read. And cryptic metadata from library websites who happen to have the book (which seems to just be stanford and nyu https://searchworks.stanford.edu/view/in00000071311 ) Mason (talk) 02:01, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, History, Law, and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:25, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment he was pretty clearly a Madras barrister[14]. He's cited for appearances a number of times in the Madras Law Journal[15]. I'm not finding a lot more than that.
Are you questioning whether the Madras chief justices book exists? It is held by 8 WorldCat Participating libraries. The comment about cryptic metadata doesn't make sense. Oblivy (talk) 07:02, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I believe you are confusing notability and verifiability. Just because a source is hard to find doesn't mean it isn't reliable. See WP:PAYWALL. Goldenarrow9 (talk) 19:36, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I used my university's library to see if I could find anything else on the subject. My comment on cryptic meta data was that that was literally the only additional information I could find about him. I am not rejecting the source, for being difficult to get access to. My point was that there was literately nothing else when I searched other than that metadata. Typically for someone to meet notability they have to be covered by multiple sources. And, I can't find any support for independent coverage. The book in question wasn't even something he published. The book was edited by another person long after his death. Mason (talk) 00:46, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense. Will respond more at bottom. Oblivy (talk) 02:39, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Page fails WP:GNG. No significant coverage on the subject in the sources which are also poor. Subject does not meet basic criteria to be considered notable due to insignificant coverage in multiple published, secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. If this criteria can be met, I would reconsider my vote. RangersRus (talk) 12:25, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note to Closer. Page was created by sockpuppet and is good for WP:G5 speedy deletion. RangersRus (talk) 12:29, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RangersRus, this article is not eligible for CSD G5. You've made this kind of comment several times which is a mistaken interpretation of G5. Please review WP:CSD carefully. G5 is for block evasion, not simply for being the work of a sockpuppet. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:24, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. I striked my comment. Is it right though that "when a blocked or banned person uses an alternate account (sockpuppet) to avoid a restriction, any pages created via the sock account after the earliest block or ban of any of that person's accounts qualify for G5"? WP:G5. RangersRus (talk) 12:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see an SPI on 21 March and this article was created 19 March. Blocks were in April. Perhaps I'm misreading or missing something? Oblivy (talk) 22:23, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

G5 does not apply to the initial accounts that are blocked for socking if they are not evading a block at that point. It only applies to the articles created by accounts that come after the initial case/block.

In this case, both the accounts were used simultaneously and neither of them had an active block. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 20:38, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as opinion is divided. Just FYI, a general comment for all AFDs, when an editor says "seems like" or "likely" or "appears to be" it means to me that the editor hasn't read or seen the sources and are basing their opinion on attributes like the title or the publisher. If that's the case, it's good not to have an absolutist opinion on what should happen with an article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:08, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify I am right down the middle on this. This guy seems to have been a prominent barrister, wrote a number of books including a treatise on administrative law. Maybe also wrote about temples (not sure if it's the same author).

But I've tried to find the sources, and don't find anything substantial about him except for the two links on the page, and as @Smasongarrison points out above that's a book by him, or perhaps comprising judgments curated by him. And one The Hindu journalist who liked his book.

Complaints about the origin of the article are, subject to further developments, misplaced. The author seems to have a particular interest[16] in Calamur.

If, on chance, there is someone out there who can improve this article let them do it. It will not be me. There's a conversation over unblocking going on so perhaps @Hölderlin2019 will live to edit another day. Oblivy (talk) 02:56, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be onboard with draftifying. If he were in my subject area, I'd inter-library loan the book. Maybe someone will be so motivated. Mason (talk) 03:05, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Draftify, either one. Hyperbolick (talk) 09:23, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 20:36, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The Hindu source is fine, but it's one source. I don't find anything in Gscholar or Books, there are some papers he's written on various aspects of the law, but these don't affect notability here. I think there could be more sourcing in the local language, but I can't locate any. Oaktree b (talk) 23:27, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hosta

Law

Recent Comments