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

Joseph A. Fried

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

All primary sources and routine coverage of cases Joseph Fried was involved in, but nothing to show that he meets GNG. Googling didn't turn up anything. BuySomeApples (talk) 21:55, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Law, and Georgia (U.S. state). WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:34, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article makes no claim to notability which would satisfy either WP:BLP or WP:NPROF. I have also done some searches and see nothing which would change that but will reconsider if further sources are found. Oblivy (talk) 01:39, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: He appears to have quite a following among lawyers, but the article as currently written is a mess. Bearian (talk) 01:43, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

He certainly seems to be active in a lot of committees, and has published a bit, but I see no evidence he's getting published recognition. The article cites to things that quote him and then a bunch of primacy sources. I can't assess the law.com article as it's paywalled, but even if it is substantive and not just puff/interview, that's only one source. His book, Understanding Motor Carrier Claims is apparently self-published, has no WorldCat entries, and based on a Google Scholar search has one citation. Oblivy (talk) 02:16, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sekou Ma'at

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

Non-notable social worker. No WP:RSs and would seem none are likely to exist. Fails WP:ANYBIO. Cabrils (talk) 00:41, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a quick Google search yields only five results, only three of which actually mention him. The article itself cites very minimal sources, one of which is a primary source. Is written largely like a resume. Element10101 T ~ C 01:54, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:33, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lyal S. Sunga

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

I don't know that this person is notable. —Eyer (he/him) If you reply, add {{reply to|Eyer}} to your message. 01:08, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Eyer (he/him) If you reply, add {{reply to|Eyer}} to your message. 01:08, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Law, and Italy. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:32, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Only one article is not primary. He also doesn't have too many academic citations in Google Scholar.Goodboyjj (talk) 05:20, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jóhann Hinrik Níelsson

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

Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. I was unable to find any significant coverage with a Google search in Icelandic media or in the Icelandic newspaper archives (timarit.is). Deaths of notable Icelandic persons does generally get coverage in Morgunblaðið but I didn't find any outside of obituaries from relatives. Alvaldi (talk) 18:02, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Alvaldi (talk) 18:02, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Iceland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:18, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom, as far as I can tell very few sources exist on this topic. Garsh (talk) 13:45, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Hillmann

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

He's held notable leadership roles, but there is little to no significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Most coverage consists of routine announcements or PR pieces lacking the depth required to establish notability per WP:BIO. No evidence of substantial recognition/awards or major lasting impact that would merit a standalone article Mooonswimmer 18:26, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Cryptocurrency, Law, Illinois, and Wisconsin. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:22, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

‘’‘Keep’’’ – The subject clearly meets the criteria for inclusion under WP:BIO and WP:GNG, with multiple independent, reliable sources covering his work in substantive detail over a sustained period. The argument that coverage is limited to “routine announcements” does not hold up under review of available sourcing.

1. Substantive Coverage in National and International Media

Patrick Hillmann has received significant, non-routine coverage in numerous independent, reliable sources, particularly in relation to his role in one of the most consequential regulatory enforcement actions in the history of the cryptocurrency industry.

‘’‘The New York Times’’’ covered the U.S. Department of Justice’s $4.3 billion settlement with Binance and referenced Hillmann’s role as part of the executive leadership navigating the crisis: [1]

‘’‘CNBC’’’ aired multiple interviews with Hillmann during regulatory investigations: [2]

‘’‘Reuters’’’ and ‘’‘The Wall Street Journal’’’ covered Binance’s billion-dollar liquidity events and quoted the exchange’s communications posture—spearheaded by Hillmann: [3] [4]

These are not “routine” press releases but mainstream coverage identifying Hillmann as a key figure in the management of major financial and regulatory crises. This meets the WP:GNG requirement for significant coverage in reliable, independent sources.

2. Demonstrable Policy-Relevant and Institutional Impact

Hillmann personally authored Binance’s formal response to a bipartisan U.S. Senate inquiry led by Senators Elizabeth Warren, Chris Van Hollen, and Roger Marshall—an event covered in:

‘’‘CoinDesk’’’: [5]

‘’‘Blockworks’’’: [6]

This led to direct public criticism from Senator Warren—coverage that appeared in national press. Several months later, the DOJ settlement publicly affirmed many of the claims made in Hillmann’s letter, including the absence of user fund commingling and acknowledgement of compliance improvements. This level of influence on U.S. policymaker engagement satisfies WP:BIO#1, which includes having “a significant impact in their professional field.”

3. Executive Leadership in a Notable Institution

Hillmann served as Binance’s Chief Communications Officer and then Chief Strategy Officer during one of the most closely watched periods in the company’s history. Binance is the largest crypto exchange in the world by trading volume.

He held executive responsibility during:

- The collapse of FTX and Three Arrows Capital

- Regulatory investigations by the SEC, CFTC, and DOJ

- The $4.3 billion DOJ settlement—one of the largest corporate resolutions in U.S. history

Hillmann was the public voice for Binance through these events, featured prominently in dozens of interviews, op-eds, and public statements. Per WP:CORPDEPTH, individuals who play executive roles in organizations that are “the subject of multiple independent, in-depth articles” clearly qualify.

4. Longevity, Breadth of Coverage, and Source Variety

Hillmann has appeared in a wide range of independent, non-trivial sources over the course of more than a decade:

‘’‘NBC News’’’ covered an AI-generated deepfake scam that impersonated Hillmann as part of an international fraud scheme: [7]

‘’‘O’Dwyer’s PR’’’ has documented multiple career moves across leading firms including Edelman, GE, and the National Association of Manufacturers: [8]

‘’‘Politico’’’ and ‘’‘The Hill’’’ have featured his thought leadership and professional milestones: [9]

This satisfies WP:SIGCOV, which requires significant coverage—not mere mention—in reliable sources.

5. Precedent for Inclusion

There are numerous crypto executives with significantly less mainstream visibility who currently have articles on English Wikipedia. These include:

‘’’Florian Reike’’’: A co-founder of nakamo.to and blockchain consultant. His profile is primarily niche and has little to no major media coverage. ([10])

‘’’Antoni Trenchev’’’: Co-founder of Nexo and former Bulgarian MP. While notable in crypto finance, his media exposure is largely regional.([11])

‘’’Jason Fernandes’’’: A Web3 entrepreneur with limited citation in English-language press. His article mostly cites self-published or regional sources. ([12])

‘’’Emin Gün Sirer’’’: An academic and founder of Avalanche blockchain. While respected in crypto development circles, his public role is largely technical and academic. ([13])

‘’’Adam Back’’’: A cryptographer known for Hashcash. Though influential in the early crypto community, his public visibility is limited outside technical audiences. ([14])

Each of the above has less mainstream regulatory coverage, public controversy, or executive visibility than Hillmann, yet their articles are retained under WP:GNG and WP:BIO.

Therefore I'd argue he clearly meets and exceeds the notability threshold under WP:GNG, WP:BIO, and WP:CORPDEPTH. Otherwise, the bar here is being set abnormally high, particularly while the subject seems to still be very active and influential. 24.234.111.50 (talk) 19:38, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Three of the sources count towards Notability. Federal Newswire, Mifeed, and Crypto Republique are multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other and independent of the subject. If anyone needs further explanation, let me know. There’s one source that’s clearly an interview (Business Daily), so that wouldn’t count towards Notability. But we have 3 sources that do. That counts as multiple sources and they meet the stated criteria of WP:BIO. Thanks.

SilverhairedHarry (talk) 16:45, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no reliable sources at all per WP:RS. That includes Federal News Wire, which is a press release, and Mifeed and CR are basically blogs. Bearian (talk) 02:14, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sources in the article are not independent of the subject. The sources included in the keep of this is "press person makes press statement." There is a lot of pseudo-biography building. His service to the Lincoln Park Zoo, auxiliary board is not encyclopedic.--Mpen320 (talk) 02:51, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keily Blair

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

Inherited notability from OnlyFans & Blair's positions at the company. While there are good sources surrounding her hiring as CEO, it speaks to a single event in her life. I don't see how this could be anything other than promotional. 30Four (talk) 04:43, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and Law. 30Four (talk) 04:43, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Ireland, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:49, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just curious here, why this one and not Amrapali Gan? Hyperbolick (talk) 06:04, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Great point, I've nominated that one as well. 30Four (talk) 07:28, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Subject passes WP:BASIC with multiple sources. Google news search brings up quite a few articles where they are the focus. Dr vulpes (Talk) 06:22, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The subject may pass WP:BASIC up front for coverage of her becoming the CEO of OnlyFans, but she does not appear to be notable for any other action. Lots of additional press appears to stem from actions of the company as a whole or interviews with her. Could you post the articles you feel best represent her notability, aside from OnlyFans? 30Four (talk) 07:33, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sources 3 and 4 are ok, 7 is an interview. More than enough coverage for a CEO of one of the largest websites on the planet, notability is shown. Oaktree b (talk) 13:47, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:ONEEVENT - Only notability comes as CEO of OnlyFans. Source 3 and 4 only talk about her as CEO and background only because of that. Source 7 is some random awards-giving non-profit.---Avatar317 ^(talk) 23:07, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note - the article was created by a paid editor user:AG at OnlyFans; so as CEO running the company, she paid one of her employees to create this page for her.---Avatar317 ^(talk) 23:06, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Adding COI notice to article ApexParagon (talk) 23:16, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to OnlyFans, where she and her role in the company are mentioned. ApexParagon (talk) 23:18, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I fail to see the relevance of WP:ONEEVENT here. Being the CEO of a major company is not an "event". If someone meets WP:GNG because they have attracted coverage for holding a notable position or role, that doesn't affect their notability in the slightest. Most of our article subjects have "inherited" their notability from some kind of position for which they have received coverage (e.g. footballers, politicians, musicians), so I have no clue why a CEO should be treated differently. I agree with Oaktree b that sources 3 and 4 provide significant coverage of Blair herself and are sufficient to meet GNG. There's also this article in the South China Morning Post, which is a bit weirdly written but is still a bylined article in a reliable source, and this in Fortune. I think she easily meets GNG. MCE89 (talk) 15:17, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as meets WP:BASIC with significant coverage in independent reliable sources including in The New Statesman [15], Fortune (magazine) [16], Variety (magazine) [17], and this by Reuters in American newspapers [18]/[19] (not yet in article). WP:BIO1E does not apply if coverage is sustained over time, which it is here. Article could use some editing but subject meets Wikipedia's notability requirements. Nnev66 (talk) 19:41, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Levy (mayor)

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

Non-notable local politician that fails WP:NPOLITICIAN. All of the sources used are either WP:PASSINGMENTIONS, routine coverage of local elections, or not actually about the subject at all and just include his name. This exact article was declined and rejected multiple times by me and others at WP:AFC and you can see extensive discussion about it here and here. I also wrote a source-by-source review as an AfC comment that I ask an admin to please copy here for reference. The page creator has a history of moving the draft out of process and resubmitting without any changes. Even now, they requested the rejected drafts deletion just to immediately recreate the page in the mainspace. I would be agreeable to redirect to Hollywood, Florida as an ATD. cyberdog958^Talk 19:52, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Law, Politics, and Florida. cyberdog958^Talk 19:52, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: AI-generated - at least partially - seeing as how a number of the references include ?utm_source=chatgpt.com at the end of the url. Curbon7 (talk) 20:02, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nominator. I don't think this meets WP:NPOL at all. Editz2341231 (talk) 20:27, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect >>> Hollywood, Florida#Government. Djflem (talk) 05:50, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - mayor of a city of 150,000 could be notable. I have a first cousin who lives in Hollywood but I don't think they are friends. Bearian (talk) 02:19, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hollywood, Florida#Government. Size of municipality does not affect whether a local elected official passes GNG. What matters is whether there is sufficient information to say more than mayor X exists. --Enos733 (talk) 22:29, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Darazo Satellite Prison

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

Non-notable prison. No evidence of any individual notability that I could find, and no apparent need for a standalone article. CycloneYoris ^talk! 03:30, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CycloneYoris ^talk! 03:30, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Nigeria. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:19, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Darazo and redirect. This might be a significant employer for the town. Bearian (talk) 02:28, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Student work

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

A very minor aspect of child labor unworthy of a separate article. Belgium has some formal legal protection/regulations for such, but that's about it. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:38, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:18, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies GNG with significant coverage in Google Books and elsewhere, such as [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25]. Also called student employment, student labour, a student job, a summer job, etc and often has the words "part time" after the word "student". Most university students are not legally classified as children, or even as minors, as far as I am aware. They tend to be over 18, which is typically the legal age of majority these days, and mature students can be much older. Historically, many working children were not in education of any kind. So the overlap is very limited. James500 (talk) 07:45, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The articles I find on Google Scholar, HeinOnline, De Gruyter Brill, and Cairn.info satisfy WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Z. Patterson (talk) 01:18, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, As other users have noted above, this article has the necessary notability and is also not related to child labor. Taraa Scott (talk) 14:38, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it's distinct and not horrible. Bearian (talk) 02:21, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per above, however poor the quality of the article. I would personally favour moving it to "student employment" or "student jobs". Work is too vague. —Brigade Piron (talk) 13:50, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Minimum Standards for Child Protection in Humanitarian Action

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

This article appears to be original research that builds upon a non-notable, non-binding framework by an NGO working group. Many of the sources cited do not mention the Minimum Standards (for example, refs 11 and 16). voorts (talk/contributions) 00:51, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Disability, Discrimination, Health and fitness, and Law. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:51, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, this is not an NGO working group, rather this working group is composed of different international organisations, including UNICEF, UNHCR, IOM, IFRC, IRC and Save the Children. During humanitarian response, (e.g. Rohingya crisis), all the humanitarian crisis responding agencies, including national, international, and intergovernmental, follow these principles to ensure child protection and child safeguarding indeed. In terms of the references, the sources do not explicitly mention the standards at all, rather the sources are mentioned to explore the concepts, mentioned in the standards (e.g. reference 11 talks about justice for children and elaborates the necissity of Standard 14; reference 16 discusses about the protection of excluded childre ike children with disabilities and explains the gravity of Standard 18).

Wikipedia deletion policy WP:DEL-REASON (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Reasons_for_deletion) mentions 14 criteria and I believe this article does not meet the criteria for deletion. Janilin.bappi (talk) 04:53, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Point to a page number in sources 11 and 16 that mention the Minimum Standards. voorts (talk/contributions) 12:19, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So, User:Janilin.bappi, you are arguing to Keep? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:02, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. It's a brief of the minimum standard of CPHA, which is globally practised. I believe it deserves to stay. Janilin.bappi (talk) 09:56, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Janilin.bappi: what do you mean by "it's a brief"? Wikipedia articles are meant to summarize what secondary sources have to say about a particular topic (see WP:NOR and WP:SS. I couldn't find mention of the CPHA in most of the sources you cited. voorts (talk/contributions) 12:39, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In brief means a summary for your clarification. The references mentioned at the beginning of the relevant principles are provided for a deeper exploration of those issues. In the case of Standard 14 – Justice for Children, for example, related readings are not available on wiki yet. So, if readers want to explore the topic further, they can refer to the listed sources. Janilin.bappi (talk) 12:19, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:22, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it's classic WP:SYNTH in that it uses more than one primary source, but no secondary sources that analyze it, yet cites to sources that don't actually mention the topic. Bearian (talk) 02:59, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. We have one unbolded Keep here in the discussion. A source analysis would be helpful to a future closer.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:12, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with another relevant page, perhaps Sexual exploitation and abuse in humanitarian response. First I want to commend those involved in this important work and those who are attempting to bring this to en.wiki. The problem as far as I see it is that the topic of child protection during humanitarian interventions clearly *is* notable, this action plan probably *isn't* as it hasn't been covered in depth by multiple independent sources. The solution would appear to be beefing up content at another page. Another possibility is to rename and refocus the current page as I'm sure there are high quality sources discussing the topic if not the action plan. Good luck to all those involved. JMWt (talk) 07:00, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]