Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Law

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion and merging 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion and neither does removing an AfD from this page remove it from the main page at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. 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:deletion sorting|Law|sig=~~~~}} 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

watch

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

See also: Crime-related deletions.

Law

Christina Blacklaws

Christina Blacklaws (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)

Non-notable English solicitor. Coverage is limited to: a WP:PRIMARYSOURCE Q&A interview, routine coverage in WP:TRADES (not mainstream publications) that one would expect for someone who was the elected chair of her trade association (, , , , , , , ), WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs of her in coverage of other topics (, , ), affiliated sources (, , , , , ), and primary sources (,, . There's basically no WP:SIGCOV in independent, secondary, reliable sources. My WP:BEFORE search turned up a Guardian article but it is entirely based on her own comments (almost a Q&A) and thus not truly independent coverage. I see no evidence of notability under any WP:NBIO guideline (president of the Law Society of England and Wales is not an office that confers notability). Article appears to be part of a broader WP:ADMASQ effort connected to Blacklaws' firm TV Edwards. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:38, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Law, and England. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:38, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

• Comment Blacklaws was elected a fellow of Exeter College, Oxford in 2023, which will contribute to notability. As she left TV Edwards in 2011, I am not clear on why this would be part of a campaign to bolster that law firm. I will see what more content I can fine, beyond the extensive list above which could cumaltively be an argument for WP:BASIC. DaffodilOcean (talk) 20:51, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

  Being elected an honorary fellow of a constituent college is different from being elected a fellow of a major academic society. At Exeter, it seems like the equivalent of an honorary doctorate, which is not generally thought to confer notability (and at any rate being granted such distinction by her own alma mater is even less notable). Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:54, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

Keep You conflate WP:NCORP with WP:BIO. The presumption against trade publications appears in NCORP and applies to determining the notability of organisations and companies. There is no equivalent exclusion in the biographical guideline.

Under WP:BIO, the question is whether Blacklaws has received significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent secondary sources. She has been the subject of a substantial profile in The Guardian, plainly a national general-interest source, alongside independently written coverage and interviews in established legal publications.

Specialist legal press is not automatically disqualified from establishing the notability of a lawyer. What matters is whether the particular source is reliable, independent and provides non-trivial coverage. Routine appointment notices and supplied biographies should be discounted, substantive editorial profiles should not. Critical Hippo (talk) 20:52, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

WP:TRADES publications are not generally independent of the businesses they cover and are thus not independent of the people who work for those businesses. And as I've pointed out, the Guardian profile is almost entirely composed of her own quotes and is clearly not independent of her. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:55, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

Source? Critical Hippo (talk) 21:06, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

Thomas Victor Edwards

Thomas Victor Edwards (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)

Non-notable solicitor. Coverage is limited to: WP:TRADES coverage of his firm, not of him personally (, ), press releases from his firm (, ), WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs (, ), a primary source (, and sources that don't mention him (, , , ). No evidence of notability from a WP:BEFORE search (I couldn't even find an independently published obituary). Appears to be part of a broader WP:ADMASQ effort connected to the law firm he started. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:25, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, and England. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:25, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

Anthony Edwards (solicitor)

Anthony Edwards (solicitor) (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)

Non-notable solicitor. Coverage is limited to a primary source Q&A, a primary source bio, his own works (, , ) a brief [mention in a WP:TRADES publication, a tribute in a trade publication he wrote for and thus not independent, a press release from his own law firm, WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs (, , , ) and a source that doesn't mention him. The only source that comes near qualifying for WP:GNG is a local news mention of a book he wrote, and that's not nearly enough. The page creator appears to have put every mention of Edwards ever into this; I didn't find anything in my BEFORE search to indicate a pass of WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO or WP:NAUTHOR, or any other applicable guideline. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:14, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Law, and England. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:14, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

Failed execution of Christa Pike

Failed execution of Christa Pike (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)

Mostly repeats information at Christa Pike, and if any info here is new, then it can be easily woven into the main article. I see no reason to WP:SIZESPLIT at this time. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 04:31, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose Am the creator of the article; don't have much time on my hands at present (law school) so was being more bare-bones than I would like to be. Tried to get the essential background and basic tenor of reaction, so that it could be fleshed out with the information relevant to the execution attempt that wouldn't appropriate for the main Christa Pike article, e.g. the broader lethal-injection and capital-punishment debate that the incident has set off. Kaspar Hauser (talk) 04:45, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

  In that case, I would suggest developing it in draft space first. In current state, readers will navigate to this "main" article about the execution but will be left with less information about it than had they just stayed at the Pike article. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 04:55, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

  My thought was that with the current degree of attention (so probably corresponding degree of editorial initiative/hands on deck) it would probably ultimately result in a more in-depth article if created now rather than in a week. Totally happy for it to be deleted and definitely take your point, but that was my logic. Kaspar Hauser (talk) 05:04, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Support - I get wanting to publish pages covering the executions of notorious people, but is a failed execution necessary? That would make it the only one of its kind on Wikipedia and its necessity would have already been erased once Christa's execution is carried out. For now, you should do what TarkusAB suggested by developing your article in its draft space. I highly recommend renaming your draft to Execution of Christa Pike and that you include the news for how long she's been on death row. — TheFloridaTyper (DMS) — 06:01, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

I would argue it's necessary precisely because it's failed: per NBC, "The majority of failed executions on record were lethal injection attempts, but in all cases except Pike’s, the failures involved the administering doctor’s inability to find a vein, meaning the lethal drugs had not yet started to flow, Sarat said, calling Pike’s case 'uncharted territory.'" It's a unique case, and a later, successful execution wouldn't obviate that fact. Kaspar Hauser (talk) 06:09, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

I also agree. This is a unique case that has attracted international attention precisely because it does not fit the pattern seen in other failed executions. The drugs were administered using both primary and backup IV sites, yet the execution did not achieve its intended result. Regardless of whether a future execution is ultimately successful, the significance of this event lies in the nature of the failure itself, as it represents a distinct type of failed execution rather than another example of difficulties establishing IV access. ~2026-53458-96 (talk) 09:55, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

References

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Tennessee. Shellwood (talk) 12:50, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Delete Agreeing with @TarkusAB. All info is redundant to the main article. There is plenty of sourcing in her article to cover the botched execution. Bluehawkking (talk) 18:20, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Oppose and Expand: There is reporting on this event which would not necessarily be on topic at Christa Pike, such as:

• The history of the (recently resigned) Corrections Commissioner's involvement with past failed executions: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/tennessee-s-outgoing-prison-chief-had-a-history-of-execution-missteps-before-christa-pike-officials-say/ar-AA2dA2Ro
• Discussion of Pike's thrombocytosis, which Pike alleged would complicate IV placement and increase risk of suffering, and whether drug-based execution protocols need flexibility in such cases. This is relevant in light of the seven needle placement attempts.
• Discussion of Tennessee's single-drug phenobarbital execution plan in comparison to other states' and jurisdictions execution plans.
• Broader scrutiny of the US death penalty in light of this event: https://www.tbsnews.net/analysis/christa-pike-case-failed-execution-puts-death-penalty-under-scrutiny-1563146
• Proposals for different execution methods in Tennessee, such as firing squad: https://fox17.com/news/local/firing-squad-as-execution-method-in-tenn-after-christa-pikes-failed-execution-attempt

If the article remains, I am happy to expand it with these sorts of topics, which would be difficult or impossible to incorporate into the Christa Pike article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Izzy Grosof (talk • contribs) 16:53, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Delete All content should be contained within her own article. Nikolaih^☎️📖 20:18, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Events-related AfD discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:39, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Oppose and Expand: per arguments advanced by Izzy Grosof above. - Yadsalohcin (talk) 21:04, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

• Redirect to Christa Pike § 2026 execution attempt: While this article is very similar to the contents of the linked section, it is still a legitimate title. BlueStaticHorse (talk🌸) 23:58, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Ed Troyer

Ed Troyer (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 am not seeing the case for notability here. A county sheriff who has, basically, a WP:BLP1E case for calling too much backup in one confrontation. Everything else here is routine for a county sheriff except the legal troubles of his adopted son, which do not go to the subject's own notability. I note that this was tagged for notability by User:SunDawn in 2023, and that the tag was removed by User:Thornfield Hall the following day without explanation or improvement to the article. BD2412 T 21:33, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Washington. BD2412 T 21:33, 4 October 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Politics, and United States of America. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 22:04, 4 October 2026 (UTC)
• Rename: The 2021 incident is the only notable bit. Rename to something about that. CopyleftEverything (talk) 22:42, 4 October 2026 (UTC)
  • How is the 2021 incident notable, though? A cop called in excessive backup for a claimed threat from a delivery person mistaken for a package thief. No one was killed or even seriously hurt. No one was convicted of any wrongdoing. It's just one of these things that happens and gets a moment of attention, with no continuing interest. BD2412 T 01:12, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

I removed the tag because it was unfounded then, and it still is now. Troyer was an elected public office holder in a major metro area. He was in the news for decades and closely associated with an investigation into a major serial killer. He was prosecuted by the state AG which is a very notable thing. Not many CLEOs standing trial out there. Aside from winning an election, none of those are routine for a county sheriff. It seems incongruous you zeroed in on this article specifically. Why didn't you tag another WA sheriff as non-notable like Steve Strachan? — THORNFIELD HALL ^(Talk) 03:59, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

My concerns are outlined in the nomination. This appears to be an article built around a single embarrassing but grandly unimportant event. With respect to the subject's office, WP:NPOL does not contemplate encyclopedic notability for every "elected public office holder in a major metro area"; rather, it says "Just being an elected local official... does not guarantee notability". Although WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is dispositive of arguments that some other officeholder has an article, the article to which you point, Steve Strachan (sheriff), is of an individual who also served in the state legislature, which does meet WP:NPOL. BD2412 T 12:17, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Delete none of this adds up to notability. PARAKANYAA (talk) 13:28, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

• Delete: Doesn't seem to meet criminal notability. Outside of the 2021 event, coverage is routine, borderline CV material. The criminal charges are routine items and the 2021 event is more of a local piece of trivia than anything we can use for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 14:24, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

An Act to eliminate the 2013 statutory pay adjustment for Federal employees

An Act to eliminate the 2013 statutory pay adjustment for Federal employees (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 unsuccessful bill 2013 bill has attracted no attention since its introduction, and l can't find any contemporary reporting. A redirect to its proposed, Ron DeSantis, would be appropriate if it was mentioned in his article, buts it's not, and I doubt it would be DUE to mention it. 1brianm7 (talk) 20:44, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related AfD discussions. 1brianm7 (talk) 20:44, 4 October 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Law and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 20:58, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

I did not notice the Government Executive source. Still don't think its notable, and I'm not so sure that's sigcov. 1brianm7 (talk) 23:36, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

• Delete This user made articles for a significant number of bills introduced that year, largely sourced to primary sources, but few are actually notable. Reywas92^Talk 00:41, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related AfD discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:00, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
• Delete: Rather non-notable piece of legislation about a 0.5% pay increase. Trivial budget matters are not wiki material. Oaktree b (talk) 14:25, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

TV Edwards

TV Edwards (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)

Despite being WP:REFBOMBed, this British law firm does not appear to be notable under WP:NCORP. Across 72 sources, there is not a single one that shows WP:SIGCOV in WP:SIRS. Instead, the sources are:

• WP:PRIMARYSOURCEs (, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , )
• WP:CORPTRIV in WP:TRADES covering mergers, personnel moves, etc. (, , , , )
• Non-independent WP:TRADES coverage based solely on press releases/statements by employees of the firm (, , , )
• Mentions of the company in user-data-submitted ranking programs (see RSN discussion) (, , , , [ourt-of-protection/3239-tv-edwards-solicitors-llp, , )
• WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs in coverage of other topics (, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , )
• Non-independent writings by the firm's personnel (, , )
• The firm's own website (, , )
• Sources that don't mention the subject (, , , , , , )

The best source is this one, but the company still only gets a few mentions in a much longer article and I don't think it's even close to SIGCOV. There's so much reliance on primary sources and sources that don't mention the subject that I consider this to be a piece of original research and thus fails both WP:NCORP and the WP:NOT test. And while I don't detect strong WP:AISIGNS, earlier versions included dead links in sources that were dead at the time of publishing, and the page creator acknowledged using AI to format citations, so it's possible there is a need to look for AI-related issues as well. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:15, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Companies, Suspected AI-generated articles, and England. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:15, 4 October 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related AfD discussions. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 22:06, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

Support Deletion per nominator Lightbulb Noob (talk) 16:43, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Keep. I created the article, and I accept that it is over-referenced and that a fair number of the citations do not establish notability. Some of the primary sources, directories, personnel announcements and passing mentions could probably be removed.

I don't agree, though, that there is no significant independent coverage.

The 2014 Guardian article is the clearest example. It discusses TV Edwards' finances, staffing changes, salary reductions, use of paralegals and its response to legal-aid cuts. That seems to go well beyond a WP:TRIVIALMENTION. WP:NCORP says significant coverage can consist of "description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation", and also specifically says that the organisation does not have to be the main topic of the source.

I also don't think all of the specialist legal press can simply be excluded as WP:TRADES. NCORP does create a presumption against trade publications, but it also expressly says that feature stories from leading trade publications may be used where independence is clear. I agree that routine merger and appointment stories don't establish notability, but independently reported features should be considered individually.

On the primary-source point, I don't think their use makes the article WP:OR. WP:PRIMARY allows primary sources for straightforward descriptive facts. If I have used any of them to draw conclusions that the sources themselves don't make, I am happy for that material to be removed.

The same applies to the AI concern. I did use AI to help format some citations. If there are any citation errors, unsupported statements or other problems, I am happy to correct them. But that seems separate from whether the subject satisfies NCORP.

I agree the article can be tightened considerably, and I am happy to do that. I just don't think the available sourcing supports the conclusion that the firm has received no significant independent coverage. Keep and improve. Critical Hippo (talk) 18:10, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

‘’‘Keep.’’’

I agree with the Article creator. The Guardian piece alone appears to provide substantive, independent discussion of the firm rather than a passing mention, and the specialist press sources should be assessed individually rather than dismissed wholly as trade coverage. The article clearly needs pruning, but that is a cleanup issue, not in itself a reason for deletion. On balance, I think there is enough here to satisfy WP:NCORP, particularly when the stronger sources are considered together.

Faithfully

NimbNimb (talk) 20:21, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Hi @NimbNimb, how did you find this conversation for your very first edit? And please don't use AI to compose responses at AfD, see WP:AITALK. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:23, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Hello There,

You're Correct that this is the first activity on this account, that's because I rarely use Wikipedia these days, and I lost the password to my old, primary account. In regards to AI, i can barely use Wikipedia any more, let alone ChatGPT or what have you.

Faithfully

NimbNimb (talk) 20:42, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

@NimbNimb Please disclose the name of your previous account per WP:VALIDALT. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:48, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

I can barely remember to put my dentures on in the morning. Do you think I can remember the name of an account from like several years ago? NimbNimb (talk) 20:55, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

I think it is rather unusual that someone who can barely remember to put dentures on in the morning suddenly arrived at a deletion discussion with a determination to participate. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:57, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

I see the tism doesn’t disappoint. It was a figure of speech darling. NimbNimb (talk) 21:05, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Hi @NimbNimb, what do you mean by "the tism doesn’t disappoint"? Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 02:02, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

Martin Glenn

Martin Glenn (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)

Per WP:USJUDGE, bankruptcy judges are not inherently notable. Nothing in this article indicates that Judge Glenn meets the general notability guidelines otherwise. IGAEB (talk) 23:15, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

• Comment. Glenn is an elected life member of the American Law Institute, so that point, among others, seems to satisfy notability in WP:NACADEMIC. Jay-Wiki (talk) 23:18, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

  A number of other U.S. bankruptcy judges have been elected to the American Law Institute. Besides Judge Glenn, only one other ALI-member bankruptcy judge (Christopher M. Klein) has a Wikipedia profile, and I've just nominated his page for deletion also.

  I get your point about WP:NACADEMIC. I notice that WP:NACADEMIC says that a person may be notable if "The person has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a national academy of science or the Royal Society) or a fellow of a major scholarly society which reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor (e.g., Fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers or Honorary Fellow of the Institute of Physics)".

  But I'm not sure that election to ALI would qualify here. For one thing, most ALI members are practitioners or judges, not academics.

  Read the criteria for electing ALI members here: https://www.ali.org/about-our-members. I'm not sure that this is selective enough to make all ALI members inherently notable enough to have their own Wikipedia profile. See what you think after reading ALI's own criteria for membership. True, ALI is selective, and doesn't admit everyone. But, just because a person has been elected to membership in a selective organization doesn't make them notable -- if it did, then conceivably, any member of a private country club could be notable. IGAEB (talk) 23:30, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

  Comment. IGAEB Election to ALI undoubtedly fits that description. It's long been recognized/known as pretty much the gold standard in the profession, hence why I authored the article in the first place as part of my Henry Friendly series. There was a book published on the history of the organization by Oxford University Press some time ago that certainly lays those doubts to rest:

  The ALI today has 2,767 elected members, 1,686 life members, and a few other categories of membership for a total of 4,778 members. It remains an elite organization, representing about 0.37 percent of all American lawyers, and about 2 percent of the total membership of the American Bar Association. — Oxford University Press

  From its origins, the ALI has been a self-consciously elitist organization, operating under the premise that a collection of distinguished individuals drawn from the practicing bar, the judiciary, and the legal academy can make significant contributions to the growth and development of American law. — Chapter 3

  Members are elected to the ALI by existing members based on both professional achievement and “high character and ability.” Being selected as one of the ALI’s 3000 members is an honor for a lawyer, judge, or legal scholar. — Iowa Law Review

  Jay-Wiki (talk) 02:21, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

  I still am hesitant to agree that ALI membership confers inherent notability. I believe that the Wikipedia community should come to a consensus on this issue. I've started a discussion topic about this on Wikipedia talk:Notability (people). IGAEB (talk) 13:36, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Law, California, New Jersey, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:24, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

• Comment. I just looked for Martin Glenn on HeinOnline (a database of nearly every American legal periodical published since the last 19th century). Martin Glenn appears to have never published anything at all. IGAEB (talk) 20:20, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
• Delete Fails GNG. I can't find any sourcing that meets our expectations. I do not see how this passes NACADEMIC, especially as there no consensus about whether membership in ALI provides automatic notability to an adjunct faculty member. --Enos733 (talk) 04:37, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

Christopher M. Klein

Christopher M. Klein (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)

Per WP:USJUDGE, bankruptcy judges are not inherently notable. Nothing in this article indicates that Judge Klein meets the general notability guidelines otherwise. IGAEB (talk) 23:30, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Law, Military, California, Illinois, and Rhode Island. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:23, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

Some people are suggesting that Judge Klein should be inherently notable because he is a member of the American Law Institute. I've started a discussion of this topic on Wikipedia talk:Notability (people). IGAEB (talk) 13:37, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Ellen Kaden

Ellen Kaden (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)

Creation back in 2009. She's mentioned in many sources due to her prominent job titles, but no significant coverage about her. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 10:46, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People and Law. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 10:46, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Women-related AfD discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:29, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
• Delete. This article does not pass WP:NBIO or WP:GNG. Aneirinn (talk) 19:29, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

2026 Turkish LGBTQ raids

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/2026 Turkish LGBTQ raids
• Articles for deletion/2026 Turkish LGBTQ raids (2nd nomination)

2026 Turkish LGBTQ raids (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 propose merging to LGBTQ rights in Turkey because:

1) The background info is relevant to similar crackdowns in the past, none of which have their own articles. If the article is merged then the readers of the resulting article will more easily understand common factors between crackdowns in different years in the past. Also editors (such as myself) are more likely to update.

2) As far as I know there are no new laws about it since the previous crackdown.

3) The EU stance is longstanding, not specific to this particular crackdown

For info: Previous merge proposal Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2026 Turkish LGBTQ raids was procedurally closed because article was re-added to "In the news". https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=&diff=prev&oldid=1376747348 In Turkish Wikipedia it is integrated not a separate article. Both pages are a little under 6000 words but after merging I would reduce the size by removing duplicate info and excess detail Chidgk1 (talk) 07:29, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Law, LGBTQ+ studies, and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 07:29, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Discrimination and Events. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:14, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Comment/Slight keep Honestly, I just don't like that it's LGBTQ rights in Turkey article. Yes, this is about LGBTQ rights, but this is a very big crackdown on communities, journalists, etc., and it would fit better as an important event. Like in the former nomination, I want to reiterate that adding this to such a broad article may cause it to be minimized. There is also an ongoing crackdown on the major news network T24 under this operation and a discussion in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe about this. I'd recommend keeping this at the moment.

Also, on the language thing, this article has already been adapted as a standalone article in 12 different languages. I don't see how the Turkish Wiki is relevant to this. Every Wiki works independently; we have many articles that are standalone here but not in their native Wiki, unless Turkish Wiki and English Wiki are somehow interconnected. I would be happy to get answers for these, thanks. 𝕿𝖍𝖊 𝕮𝖆𝖙𝕻𝖊𝖓𝖈𝖎𝖑 𝕿𝖎𝖒𝖊𝖘 (talk) 16:42, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Keep for now and Wait previous nomination was only a week ago, and we should give it some time to see if there will be any WP:LASTING coverage, and other coverage of it as a historical event, and then see if it meets WP:GNG. Servite et contribuere (talk) 08:23, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

Kevin Buchanan (attorney)

Kevin Buchanan (attorney) (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)

Kevin Buchanan is a former district attorney of Washington and Nowata Counties, Oklahoma. Those counties have a combined population of only about 65,000.

The notability guidelines for government officials say, "Just being an elected local official ... does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline".

Kevin Buchanan is a former local elected official of a relatively small local area. There is nothing in this article that indicates that Mr. Buchanan meets the general notability guideline. The only other content in this article says that Mr. Buchanan is a member of the Oklahoma Pardon and Parole Board, but the article gives no indication of why this would establish notability either. IGAEB (talk) 00:04, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Plus, the article's creator has been blocked as a sockpuppet. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/ValkyrieV/Archive. IGAEB (talk) 00:07, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Law, United States of America, and Oklahoma. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 01:39, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
• Delete. Per nom. Jay-Wiki (talk) 02:41, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Delete. Any presumption of notability we make for elected officials is ultimately based on the assumption that they will do something noteworthy during their tenure. But I can't find any indication that this is the case here. Buchanan does show up in some news articles, but only in passing as a mouthpiece of the justice system (e.g. in news articles reporting that he brought a criminal case against a person, or making a statement on behalf of the parole board). Omphalographer (talk) 19:10, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

2028 United States attorney general elections

2028 United States attorney general elections (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

WP:TOOSOON, there has been no coverage that I can find on 2028 Attorney General elections in the US. We are not even past the 2026 elections so it makes sense that people have not began looking at downballot races for 2028. Propose deleting with no prejudice against recreating after November 2026 when these would possibly start being covered Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 17:57, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Law, Politics, and United States of America. BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 18:30, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Draftify instead, pending more substantial coverage, so it can be worked on. TheDeafWikipedian (talk) 18:37, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Keep I don't see why it may be too soon given we have articles for the 2028 Governor elections and 2030 U.S. Senate Races. Coolxsearcher1414 (talk) 18:45, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Those races are far more relevant and consequential AadamentAardvark (talk) 03:08, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Draftify seems to be the right move this can be improved and published when it's actually ready or there's more significant coverage. AadamentAardvark (talk) 03:09, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

• Draftify is acceptable, but the Attorney General (AG) of each state is extremely important and directly affects ordinary people. (1) Since Federal jurisdiction is constitutionally limited, local district attorneys and AGs must prosecute over 90% of crimes in the United States. In cases where the DA has a conflict of interest, the AG is appointed to handle the case even though not normally part of the job; a notable example for the New York attorney general includes the 2024 Cornell University rape allegations. (2) The AG is seen as a stepping stone to national office; of the 10 Missouri AGs in the 70 years between 1953 and 2023, 8 have become United States Senators or Governor, while another ran for Governor and the other became Deputy FBI Director. The joke is that AG stands for "Aspiring Governor". (3) In the years since 2009, the attorneys general of the states have become increasingly involved with lawsuits and as amici in cases before the Supreme Court of the United States. Bearian (talk) 02:43, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Snehangshu Kanta Acharya Institute of Law

Snehangshu Kanta Acharya Institute of Law (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOOL Filmssssssssssss (talk) 02:36, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Schools, and West Bengal. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:48, 25 September 2026 (UTC)
• Keep, first law institute of Nadia district, having reliable source with separate commons Category — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pinakpani (talk • contribs) 05:38, 25 September 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Education-related AfD discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:21, 25 September 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect to University of Kalyani#Affiliated Colleges — Additional searches yielded nothing with SIGCOV to warrant standalone notability. BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 02:56, 26 September 2026 (UTC)
• Question does it fail only English language tests for WP:GNG? What about Hindu and the local languages? — VPP (t/c) 17:53, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

  I had checked for sources in Bengali too, which is the local tongue. And the results are nil. BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 06:15, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 16:07, 2 October 2026 (UTC)