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.

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

Creen v Wright

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

Not enough sources to claim reliability. I checked online and there were not many sources. ~Rafael! (He, him) • talk • guestbook • projects 19:07, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ~Rafael! (He, him) • talk • guestbook • projects 19:07, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:38, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kerrie Kelly

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

Only 1 article links to this. Could not find SIGCOV. A search for sources mainly comes up with a namesake American interior designer. Fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 00:17, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, and Australia. LibStar (talk) 00:17, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: A lot of sources are just routine coverage of her entering or leaving job positions, but there are a few with some analysis: [1] (biography in the last few paragraphs), [2] (contains a bit of analysis about her departure), [3]. I can't decide whether this coverage is enough to scrape past WP:NBIO. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 06:15, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and Law. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 09:03, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Going to say delete because there is very little substance in the sources I found. Two of them are mostly routine coverage with a bit of analysis. The moneymanagement.com.au source is non-routine but short. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 17:56, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Minimum legal ages in Romania

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

From a contested PROD. Per WP:NOTDB, this is a collection of information that belongs in quite a few other pages, but not its own article. There's no coverage by secondary sources of the minimum ages as a group, so it fails WP:GNG. LightlySeared (talk) 16:15, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Romania. LightlySeared (talk) 16:15, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for same reasons given at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Minimum legal ages in Belgium. Local Variable (talk) 16:25, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Local Variable. Paprikaiser (talk) 20:59, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - indiscriminate collection, not notable as a topic.--Staberinde (talk) 21:37, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Minimum legal ages in Belgium

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

From a contested PROD. Per WP:NOTDB, this is a collection of information that belongs in quite a few other pages, but not its own article. There's no coverage by secondary sources of the minimum ages as a group, so it fails WP:GNG. LightlySeared (talk) 16:13, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Belgium. LightlySeared (talk) 16:13, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an indiscriminate collection of information. I agree it is not appropriate to make this the subject of an article. The information is more appropriately placed in country-specific articles. The same goes for Minimum legal ages in Romania which should also be nominated. Local Variable (talk) 16:18, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You will be glad to know that I have nominated that article as well. LightlySeared (talk) 16:20, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How timely! Local Variable (talk) 16:30, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as an indiscriminate grouping. A more focused article such as Age of consent in Belgium could potentially be viable, but a general article about "minimum legal ages in x country" doesn't really make sense to me. Zeibgeist (talk) 16:34, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - indiscriminate collection, not notable as a topic.--Staberinde (talk) 21:37, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It looks like we have a snowball going here, but I'll try a little swimming upstream here. I thought this might be notable per WP:LISTN. Here are a couple sources where the entries are discussed together: [4], [5]. Another thing that policy doesn't care about but readers probably do is that this article is the first hit when you ask search engines questions about age requirements in Belgium - WP:NORULES. Please explain what is being improved by deleting this. ~Kvng (talk) 23:11, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a history of using IAR to justify keeping articles that fall afoul of WP:NOT? If that were the case I guess all of our article policies fall away in favour of a more general criteria. I'm not sure notability is the issue here, the same logic would apply to whether we have this list from any country. The point raised against inclusion is that the information is better contained in a contextualised article that explores nuance in a way a simple list with ages cannot. One example of relevant contextualisation is List of minimum driving ages, which is clearly appropriate as it compares across countries. Local Variable (talk) 05:11, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Great, but we don't (yet) have the improvements you are requesting. Don't let perfect be the enemy of good, WP:NOTCLEANUP, WP:DEMOLISH. ~Kvng (talk) 23:21, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a surmountable problem. It's an indiscriminate listing of ages of certain legal acts within a jurisdiction. Its scope is vague. See also Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trivia sections. Local Variable (talk) 03:22, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Site Waste Management Plans Regulations 2008

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

Not notable Landpin (talk) 13:21, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Environment. Landpin (talk) 13:21, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Generic regulation, no independent coverage. Reywas92^Talk 14:07, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Environment, and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:25, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - regulations are not automatically notable; lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. If you can think of an ATD, ping me. Bearian (talk) 08:19, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006

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

Not notable Landpin (talk) 13:27, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Landpin (talk) 13:27, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Landpin seems to be nominating articles about statutory instruments at a rapid pace. It's pretty clear that this is a valid article on a topic that passes WP:GNG, and this nomination seems to be frivolous. — The Anome (talk) 13:59, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not resort to personal attacks. Landpin (talk) 14:24, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the remarks elsewhere about WP:BEFORE. You might also want to read WP:IDONTLIKEIT. — The Anome (talk) 17:26, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. This quite evidently passes WP:GNG. MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:22, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:22, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This concept is sometimes known as "succesor rights" in Canada. Perhaps a redirect from "sucessor rights (United Kingdom)" could be added. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:08, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - well-sourced, mid-important Labour law article. No explanation as to why this might be non-notable when there is significant coverage in reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 08:16, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Personal Protective Equipment at Work Regulations 1992

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

Not notable Landpin (talk) 13:35, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Landpin (talk) 13:35, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Landpin seems to be nominating articles about statutory instruments at a rapid pace. It's pretty clear that this is a valid article on a topic that passes WP:GNG, and this nomination seems to be frivolous. — The Anome (talk) 13:58, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't resort to personal attacks. Landpin (talk) 14:31, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Health and safety regulations in the United Kingdom and/or Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. Regulations themselves are rarely notable and are often best covered in the context of what is being regulated or how it is implemented (WP:NOPAGE). I would encourage Landpin to slow down and provide an ATD or deeper analysis, but this does not seem frivolous. Reywas92^Talk 14:22, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Law, and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:21, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable topic. Mauls (talk) 11:08, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations 2003

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

Landpin (talk) 15:49, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Landpin (talk) 15:49, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. My reason for nominating is that it isn't notable. Landpin (talk) 15:50, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. There is plenty of independent news about and analysis of these regulations. To mention just a few I very easily found:

Four PECR wreckers whacked with fines of £370,000 [6]
ICO Enforcement Action: £4.63 Million in PECR Fines. [7]
GDPR & PECR in the UK: Common Mistakes & Insights for 2023. [8]
What Is the Difference Between the UK GDPR and PECR? [9] MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:18, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Technology, and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:15, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. PECR is clearly notable. Mauls (talk) 16:43, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Transnational Information and Consultation of Employees Regulations 1999

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

Not notable Landpin (talk) 15:40, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Landpin (talk) 15:40, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:54, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep again, this is a major piece of legislation for the UK, written about widely. The article needs to be added to, not deleted. Wik idea 19:38, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable. Mauls (talk) 19:31, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lirwana Abdourahmane

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

Subject does not meet GNG. However, the article focuses more on the subject's arrest (which may be notable) than the subject's bio. Uncle Bash007 (talk) 16:44, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Crime, Law, and Africa. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:48, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Can this be rescued? Bearian (talk) 01:26, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject's arrest has received significant coverage from multiple independent and reliable sources. This level of attention suggests the topic meets the notability guidelines. If the article currently focuses too much on the arrest, it can be improved and expanded. Ridzaina (talk) 04:58, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is covered by reliable international sources like Front Line Defenders, FIDH, and Jeune Afrique not just for his arrest, but for his role as a lawyer and human rights defender in Niger. His work with civil society and legal defense of protesters got wide, independent attention. The article meets notability because multiple sources talk about his activism, not just one event. Instead of deleting, the article can be improved with more detail on his career. Gwanki (talk) 10:31, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 02:12, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY: it has been rescued. Bearian (talk) 02:22, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Coroners (Investigations) Regulations 2013

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

Not notable Landpin (talk) 10:32, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Landpin (talk) 10:32, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep It's legislation, and thus covered by WP:RS. There is also much more that can be said about this, see [10] - it defines some of the mechanisms set as part of the implementation of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009. Why not help expand the article, rather than submitting it to AfD? — The Anome (talk) 10:40, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think a deletion would be more appropriate but you are free to suggest a merge with Coroners and Justice Act 2009. Landpin (talk) 17:27, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:06, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete routine legislation governing routine things. Just because the Brits handle all this stuff at the national level doesn't make it notable. Mangoe (talk) 12:55, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Legislation is not automatically notable and there is no basis to speedy keep. The source above is good referencing for Prevention of future deaths report or Inquests in England and Wales, but it's not substantial coverage about this regulation itself – it merely cites it a few times as it summarizes all relevant laws in a briefing paper for members of Parliament. This could be merged to those articles, which are better suited to also cover relevant laws as a whole, rather than individual pages for individual regulations that lack independent coverage. Reywas92^Talk 16:25, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Prevention of future deaths report. Mauls (talk) 20:17, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:08, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maternity and Parental Leave etc. Regulations 1999

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

Not notable Landpin (talk) 10:30, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Landpin (talk) 10:30, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:05, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete again, routine legislation covering routine stuff which is probably described elsewhere in an article on British labor law anyway. Mangoe (talk) 12:57, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992. Bearian (talk) 01:50, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - absolutely do not delete - this is the main piece of legislation that gives every mother in the UK the right to paid maternity leave. It goes far beyond both the SSCBA 1992 and the Employment Rights Act 1996. There is a major government review coming of parental leave law. Much same reasons as found at [[11]] Wik idea 11:20, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Child care in the United Kingdom ~~Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992~~: No SIGCOV in RS. Doesn't meet GNG. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 18:52, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 and/or Child care in the United Kingdom. Every country has countless regulations. They are usually best summarized though authorizing laws or the subjects they cover – the right to paid maternity leave is the notable topic, not the implementing regulation – particularly when there are zero independent sources. Reywas92^Talk 05:06, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think the redirect to Child care in the United Kingdom is much better. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 17:21, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
*Merge/redirect/delete to Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 Without sources, how will it be verified that it really exists?. 200.46.55.60 (talk) 17:36, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Child care in the United Kingdom. These regulations are not related to Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992, so unclear why that is being suggested? Mauls (talk) 19:37, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the regulations were issued in relation to the Employment Relations Act 1999, which is the statutory instrument that provides for the rights to maternity/parental paid leave - this is not about child care provisions, it is about the replacement of wages/salary when a person is not at work due to child birth. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 21:30, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We have two different Merge/Redirect target articles proposed here. Terrible deletion nomination statement here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:09, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think a straight deletion would be better than a merger. Landpin (talk) 15:27, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statutory instruments of the United Kingdom, planning law

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

Wikipedia is not a directory. Landpin (talk) 19:17, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Environment. Landpin (talk) 19:17, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 19:37, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Town and country planning in the United Kingdom. This is more of a list than a directory; it had been tagged erroneously as a stub. If you want me to do the actual merge, please ping me. Bearian (talk) 19:10, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 19:26, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Town and Country Planning (Local Development) (England) Regulations 2004

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

Not notable. Landpin (talk) 19:19, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Environment. Landpin (talk) 19:19, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and England. Shellwood (talk) 19:37, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Town and country planning in the United Kingdom.--Policking (talk) 19:47, 25 July 2025 (UTC)— Policking (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Unclethepoter (talk · contribs). [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 19:26, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Local development framework. Mauls (talk) 19:23, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Mangel

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

Doesn't meet WP:NBIO; the subject has not received significant or in-depth coverage in multiple, reliable secondary sources that's independent of the subject. Some1 (talk) 23:14, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Some1 (talk) 23:14, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Crime, Law, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:37, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article does not meet WP:N and WP:BIO. Most available sources amount to passing or superficial mentions—insufficient for sustained encyclopedic treatment. For example, mainstream coverage on his work with high‑profile clients like Steve Bannon or Sam Bankman‑Fried lacks the in‑depth biographical treatment required by WP:N.--Policking (talk) 12:48, 23 July 2025 (UTC)— Policking (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Unclethepoter (talk · contribs). [reply]
Keep I created this article 7 months ago and it remained stable and uncontroversial until a confirmed sockpuppet network got into an edit war with an anonymous editor. The subject's notability is established by the original reliable sources, which include a 1000+ word profile of Mangel in The Times (a 240 year old newspaper of record in the UK), Semafor (website), CNN, The Palm Beach Post, California Business Journal, and many others. Schnookums123 (talk) 23:47, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Times, Semafor, and CNN sources are interviews, so they are primary sources and are not independent. — 🌊PacificDepths (talk) 05:12, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It only took a week after the article was created for the sockpuppets to show up, so the article hasn't really been stable or uncontroversial for long. Some1 (talk) 23:12, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:05, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Semafor, Times, and the Business Insider coverage have enough content from a third party perspective apart from just an interview - enough for a substantive Wikipedia article that meets notability for people. Guna Borah (talk · contrib) 07:51, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Sources classified as:

Profiles based off interviews: The Times, Semafor, CNN. These are primary sources and are not independent.
Primary or near-primary sources like court documents or parroting of government indictments like Palm Beach Post
Quotes that do not provide significant coverage of the subject, usually around being a "prison consultant": in the Miami Herald about Peter Navarro, or in Fortune story about Sam Bankman-Fried.
The California Business Journal profile constitutes significant coverage, but I don't think this is a reliable source. There is no editorial board or journalism code of ethics.

— 🌊PacificDepths (talk) 05:19, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for starting the discussion regarding the California Business Journal at the RSN. According to comments at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § California Business Journal reliable for notability in profiles?, the CBJ is unreliable for assessing notability and seems to write promotional puff pieces for pay. Some1 (talk) 23:08, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:40, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Edem Akafia

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

Other than press releases masquerading as news stories about his appointment to the Ghana Mines position (you can tell by the very similar wording in all of them), searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to show he passes WP:GNG. Disputed redirect without improvement. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:32, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Law, and Ghana. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:41, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ghana Chamber of Mines looking at the sources on Google, I agree these these are really press releases and do not quality as reliable independent sources. Czarking0 (talk) 15:43, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I believe the subject meets WP:GNG and has in-depth coverage . Also concerning the the rationale "Disputed redirect without improvement."The redirect was disputed by me at 10:01 UTC, and the article was nominated for deletion 30 minutes later. I had already begun working on improvements based on nominator's reason in the edit summary. Nominating for deletion at this stage is premature; the article should be improved, not removed. -- Robertjamal12 ~🔔 11:26, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the timing of the nomination shows the importance of using edit summaries. When the article creator reverted the redirect, they gave no indication that they were working on improving it, or even planning to work on it. If they had, I wouldn't have nominated it at that time. But since it has been nominated, if they do supply the necessary sourcing, I'm sure it will result in a KEEP result. Since the article contains numerous sources which do not go towards notability, I would suggest to the KEEP vote above that they let folks know here what the 3 best in-depth sources from independent, reliable sources are, in order to help editors ascertain notability.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:08, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification and I appreciate your good-faith approach. Just to note: I had intended to use the "undo" option to provide an edit summary, but I mistakenly used rollback, which didn’t allow for that. That was my oversight and I appreciate you pointing it out. While I believe the subject meets GNG, I also acknowledge that the article can and should be further improved. @Onel5969 Please see, [12][13],[14]. , -- Robertjamal12 ~🔔 15:17, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for more input on the three sources identified above.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 12:07, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - an up and coming but run of the mill mid-management business person. We are not LinkedIn. Bearian (talk) 17:21, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I respectfully disagree with the characterization of the subject as a "run-of-the-mill mid-management business person." The subject has held high-profile national positions, including being the President of the Ghana Chamber of Mines, which is one of the country’s most influential industry bodies. I believe the subject passes WP:GNG with SIGCOV ([15], [16], [17] and and deletion would be premature. Best -
Robertjamal12 ~🔔 17:58, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject is so not a run of the mill mid-management business person, how can we consider someone who is the President of the Ghana Chamber of Mines to be a mid-manager? The article, surely needs improvements but this isn't a low level / mid level personality. He forms part of coalitions and many others who are leading the charge against illegal mining issues in Ghana. Ampimd (talk) 23:17, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 15:30, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist; I still see no consensus. We need participants to directly address the depth and quality of sources identified by Robertjamal12 above, and that has not happened yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 19:23, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]