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:

1. 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: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.

Purge page cache

watch

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

See also: Crime-related deletions.

Animal brothel (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)

My prod was contested, but this is bordering on dictionary definition, and at least one of the cited examples (in Serbia) was the result of a meme that the Mirror interpreted at face value. Even the BBC article about Denmark's ban against bestiality acknowledge there is no proof that animal brothels actually existed and there is some further reporting and scholarship about this being a hoax or deliberate misinformation attempt [1][2] Zzz plant (talk) 17:04, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal, Crime, Law, and Sexuality and gender. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:15, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per WP:NOTDICT 79lives (talk) 21:55, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Zoophilia#Legal status. Two of the four sentences are about laws against bestiality. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:45, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

P. C. Solanki (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)

No indication of significance. Fails WP:BIO, WP:SIGCOV. Refs are mix of interviews and routine annoucements to with the cases. scope_creep^Talk 08:19, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - lots of mentions, but no in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:14, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, and Rajasthan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep: Earlier PROD-nominations were based on failing to find sources, which the re-write shows is objectively untrue. The AfD is now proposed mainly on WP:BIO, WP:RS, and WP:SIGCOV, which again reflect lack of WP:BEFORE and an appeal to policy (without specific discussion) that I address below. For instance, for user Wcquidditch (talk page), who voted above and originally nom. for PROD, several issues regarding lack of due diligence in PROD/AfD have consistently been raised on their talk page that concern me.

• WP:RS—This is trivially untrue. Subject of the article is literally the headline of independent and published news from several news organizations such as The Economics Times, Deccan Chronicle, and The Quint. No significant research is needed to create a profile of the topic from these articles and it's more than a passing mention (or routine announcement) as the subject was the primary advocate of mult-year high-profile trial (see: Asaram for defendents profile and stature). This also satisfies, in my opinion, reliable, independent, and sources criterion of WP:GNG.
• WP:SIGCOV—Additional citations within the article, where the subject is not the main topic directly, but critical part of the story support significant coverage, such as the coverage in the Caravan magazine, The Print articles. These may include interviews but are not the basis of the subjects profile. Further, coverage spans several years (2013-2023) indicating WP:SUSTAINED.
• WP:BIO—The impact of trial brought by the subject as lead counsel is highly notable (as stated above) and their portrayal in a notable bollywood film (Sirf Ek Bandaa Kaafi Hai). — Komodo (talk) 18:40, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - in light of Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Paid reporting in Indian news organizations, are the article's sources reliable? If so, I'd say "keep". --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 00:30, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mehzeb Chowdhury (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)

Other than the sheer obnoxiousness of this article (which is just one long advert about why the subject is the most awesome and interesting man in the world), I'm not totally convinced it meets the notability criteria. Reasons below:

• Many of the sources are just passing mentions, and they aren't always high quality (e.g. a casting website is used to support the claim he is an actor/filmmaker)
• A previous editor has marked the article as relying too heavily on sources that may be closely related to the subject. I happen to agree, and the generally sycophantic nature of these articles is off-putting and undermines the case for notability (given his father is a prominent journalist, I wonder if he has some connections with The Daily Star, which is one of the main sources)
• The big notability claim is his association with MABMAT, and while that is notable, I'm not sure it justifies Chowdhury having an article to himself. Furthermore, this article seems to credit Chowdhury as the sole inventor, whereas The Times was more balanced, indicating he led a team at Durham University that developed it [3]
• As a researcher he has a low h-index [4]
• An excessive number of claims rely on primary sources. A few claims aren't even verified (e.g. that he worked for Goal.com as a correspondent) Leonstojka (talk) 18:35, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Leonstojka (talk) 18:35, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:41, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Authors, Journalism, Law, Social science, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:50, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (creator) The nomination is strictly reliant on issues regarding the article. Issues regarding an article can be raised in its talk page or Wikiprojects' talk pages (I do agree it needs some touch, and I'm willing to do them once able, but that's irrelevant to an article's notability).
  Just because an article is not up to the mark on some aspects, it does not become non-notable. Many of the sources are just passing mentions- not every source of an article need to be of high quality or of depth. An article fo shizz will contain many sources that might just well be passing mentions, supporting the asserted claims.
  There exist several sources (in Bengali as well) in and out of the article that definitely speak volume for this person's notability. X (talk) 21:05, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The article has enough RS about the subject (Wired, Digital trends, HuffPost, The Times) to pass WP:NBIO. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 02:54, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There are more features that are not cited in the article as well, such as this from Ice Today. There's coverage in Bengali too, with TV appearances, features in reputed mags such as The Diplomat and Newsweek where he is introduced as an expert. Overall, why'd a non-notable person get recurrent coverage throughout the years from big pubs. X (talk) 06:00, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Xoak is right. Somajyoti ✉ 20:04, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph M. Cammarata (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:ONEEVENT, from what I can find, he has not done anything more notable than be the lawyer for Rudy Giuliani Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 15:47, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, and New York. Shellwood (talk) 16:07, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:SIGCOV. There is a single independent reliable source, the Times. Every single source is original, or primary, or in passing, or self-created, or a violation of BLP, or all of the above. The link to the NYS OCA website in particular is a total BLP disaster combined with a doxing problem. For that reason, technically it is a speedy deletion candidate; at the very least it needs oversight attention. Substantively, he's not done anything more than a run of the mill lawyer. He fails every single criterion for notable attorneys. Bearian (talk) 00:42, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Wilkinson-Smith (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)

Clearly promotional BLP filled with puffery. The only indication of notability is the article's assertion that the subject was appointed to a quasi-governmental office of "crown solicitor". The position is of so little notability that we don't have an article on it; and regardless, the cited source only states that the article's subject was briefly acting in the role and did not formally hold it. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 18:14, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Politicians, and New Zealand. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 18:14, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:32, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. More puffery than a plate of puffed pastries. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 22:27, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per above - we are not LinkedIn - but I note that he was "president of the Criminal Bar Association" (which one?). Bearian (talk) 20:55, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Frank Ken (talk) 11:32, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Just to note a Crown Solicitor is a private lawyer hired by the Crown for prosecutions. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:54, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bradley J. Franc (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)

The references used don't establish notability, and WP:BEFORE turned up nothing better. JSFarman (talk) 05:24, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no claim to notability under something like WP:NPROF, WP:NAUTHOR or WP:NPOL. The best cite appears to be the Forbes article which quotes him but also relates to a personal matter about him and his son, but even if that's significant coverage of him (which I doubt) it's just one article. The rest are mostly profiles which shouldn't be counted as they tend to be self-provided.. Oblivy (talk) 06:12, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Finance, Law, and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:15, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Frankly speaking, not notable. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 22:38, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete - he has some accomplishments, but the sourcing is poor. Willing to change my mind if shown more reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 21:22, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Article 74 of the Constitution of the Fifth French Republic (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)

While all articles and amendments of the Constitution of the United States have Wikipedia articles, only Article 2 and Article 49 of the Constitution of France have such referenced coverage here because they deal with significant topics of its national symbols and separation of powers. In comparison, Article 74 is a niche topic that has not attracted significant commentary, hence why the page currently only cites the constitution itself. The topic of how France governs the overseas collectivity is briefly covered at Ordonnance#Overseas territories, though I do not think this page should be a redirect to that brief mention. ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 17:32, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and France. ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 17:33, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• As a side discussion, note that the recently created pages for Articles 2 and 74 use a much longer title scheme than the older page for Article 49. These should be standardized. On one hand, the longer title differentiates from articles of the numerous older constitutions, but on the other, we have no Wikipedia pages on articles of those constitutions, so the disambiguation seems unnecessary. ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 17:43, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does the article of the Constitution is or was controversial? Does it have an historical meaning? Doesn't seem to have a place in Wikipedia. It doesn't have WP:SIGCOV so it should be deleted. -- Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 17:55, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:TNT. A page that merely restates a law, without any other context or secondary sources, is not an encyclopedia article. Also, Wikipedia:WikiProject Law can't do it all: we are already overburdened with a backlog of several pressing issues, including an embarrassment of unsourced articles, assessing tens of thousands of stubs for their proper class, loss of project members due to burnout or death, and ongoing controversies such as Mark Zaid and Deportation of Kilmar Abrego Garcia. Bearian (talk) 23:06, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jorge Veytia (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)

The claim to notability for this actor/writer/lawyer is not exactly clear. It seems like the most coverage he has received was in regards to his epilepsy (see this interview). I'm having trouble finding much coverage at all (movie review written by the subject?), and it seems like the article itself was created way back in 2009 by a WP:SPA. JTtheOG (talk) 22:15, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Poetry, Law, Egypt, and Mexico. JTtheOG (talk) 22:15, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:53, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article is complete enough and completely valid. There are numerous references to the author in internet, despite the author is well-recognized as lawyer and writer. The traffic the article receives also speaks why we should keep it. 188.33.26.22 (talk) 10:53, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly, I must express my dissent. Additional facts have been introduced. THERE IS NO CONSENSUS REGARDING THE REMOVAL OF THIS ARTICLE. Pedroartafij (talk) 11:26, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Let’s keep the article. It’s solid-backed up with good references, and the author’s been doing the multidisciplinary thing for over a decade now. Honestly, it just makes sense to leave it as is, given the way everything’s laid out. No need to mess with what works, especially when it’s already dialed in. Roadelallart789 (talk) 11:58, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article. The dude seems like a straight-up genius, and the sources are solid and up-to-date, no matter what some "info cops" wanna say. Fcarbajal1 (talk) 13:32, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that Roadelallart789 (talk · contribs · account creation) and Pedroartafij (talk · contribs · account creation) were both registered during this AfD and have made no prior edits to any other topics. Fcarbajal1 (talk · contribs · account creation) was registered in 2010, and their only edit was to Jorge Veytia. The account went inactive for 15 years and showed up again to !vote in this AfD. Obvious WP:VOTESTACKING attempt is obvious.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 13:09, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, sincerely I hope this article stays since I know him personally. I already notified him about the subject. Sorry for opening the Wiki account just to defend it. I vote to keep it. 🌿 Pedroartafij (talk) 14:04, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I agree with the nominator, there is no indication of notability. --VViking_TalkEdits 14:09, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Non-notable individual, I don't find any references. Not sure having narcolepsy is helpful either. Does not appear to have much critical notice either as a lawyer or actor. Oaktree b (talk) 14:42, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as the nom mentioned, the closest thing to a claim-to-fame the subject has is media attention they received for their condition. I'm surprised the page existed in mainspace for as long as it did. If Jorge Veytia were a notable topic, there would be no need for him to register and de-mothball as many accounts as possible to try to prevent its deletion as the article's sources would speak for themselves.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 14:51, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - No SIGCOV. Doesn't meet WP:NBIO. Couldn't find any RS in Spanish either. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 18:47, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Francis Schenck (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 subject fails WP:NPOL as a local elected official; local mayors must meet WP:GNG, which is also not met. The sources are all trivial and passing mentions: [5] (a more accessible version of the Graves source), [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]. No reliable source is provided for Schenck's dates/places of birth and death but they appear to be generated from Find a Grave (with the wrong month/date order in the infobox), which is a WP:USERGENERATED source. My WP:BEFORE search turned up no WP:SIGCOV for the necessary GNG pass. Draftification was contested, so here we are at AfD. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:48, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Law, and Texas. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:48, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The Death Certificate was used to source the Birth/Death dates, I have included that as a reference (please fix my citation if formatted incorrectly), I have also fixed the formatting of the dates in the infobox. Thief-River-Faller (talk) 12:51, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  That death certificate is a primary source via WP:FAMILYSEARCH. It certainly can't contribute to the notability of the subject. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:37, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I never claimed it contributed notability, you claimed my information came from Find a grave, it is from the official death certificate. Thief-River-Faller (talk) 17:12, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Right, an online search for those dates did not turn up privately accessed documents on Family Search, only Findagrave. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:28, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Here is a link to the certificate on Family Search just for reference: https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:33S7-9Y1M-3T4N?view=index&personArk=%2Fark%3A%2F61903%2F1%3A1%3AK394-7YM&action=view&cc=1983324&lang=en&groupId=TH-1942-25170-55505-85 Thief-River-Faller (talk) 18:29, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Branny Schepanovich (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)

Biography of an unelected political candidate, not properly sourced as having any strong notability claim.
As always, unsuccessful candidates for political office are not notable on that basis per se, and get articles only if they can be properly demonstrated to have established notability for other reasons that would already have gotten them an article on those other grounds anyway -- but this basically just says that he had a law career without saying anything about it that would constitute a meaningful notability claim as a lawyer, and is "referenced" solely to his paid-inclusion obituary in the local newspaper rather than any meaningful reliable source coverage about him and his work.
A prior deletion discussion in 2011 landed "keep" on the grounds of claims that he had sufficient RS coverage to pass WP:GNG, but the sources brought to bear in that discussion consisted entirely of sources that namechecked him, mostly as a party spokesman providing soundbites to the media in articles about the party, rather than being about him in any meaningful sense -- but we've long since deprecated that type of sourcing as not contributing to notability, and none of it ever actually found its way into the article at all anyway.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable without GNG-worthy sourcing for it, but we need to see sources in which he's the subject of the coverage, not just sources that quote him as a spokesman, to deem him as passing GNG. Bearcat (talk) 18:07, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Law, and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 18:07, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails in WP:NPOL and lacks WP:V. Svartner (talk) 01:23, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• comment he is described as a prominent Alberta Liberal and he was on the board (?) of Air Canada, however I could not find an obituary in regional newspapers as one would expect for such a "prominent" figure. It seems he was never elected in the party or party leader, but head of many internal committees. --hroest 16:50, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Alan Levy (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)

No indication of significance. Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:BIO. scope_creep^Talk 16:54, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, Internet, and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:02, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Illinois, New York, Oregon, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:47, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: No RS that discuss this person are used for sourcing. Source 15 is a RS but doesn't mention this person. I don't see any either, some primary sourcing only. The was at AfD over a decade ago, and still no RS have turned up. I don't think this person is notable. Oaktree b (talk) 23:12, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. The current article is in need of a clean-up and better sourcing, but I think some alternatives to deletion per Wikipedia:ATD are appropriate and I think this nomination is premature. This profile in the Washingtonian demonstrates, at least to me, there is a chance that the subject can meet WP:GNG based on a 40-year legal career at a large public advocacy group that includes arguing in front of SCOTUS. A search on Google Scholar indicates he is published in legal journals at least more than a regular attorney. Google Scholar is the floor, not the ceiling based on his writing in the University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform. In addition, he is mentioned in a number of books at the Internet Archive including books independent of him and Public Citizen. I would also recommend, should we not keep, to !redirect to Public Citizen where the guy has worked for over 40 years. The preface of "weak" is that I am in a space of quantity vs quality at this point with Internet Archive, JSTOR, etc. I am very open to the possibility he is not the subject in enough of these or that the work is not so atypical as to warrant an individual article as a non-attorney.--Mpen320 (talk) 23:25, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is not coverage. That short article are the real thing that mention him in any detail. There is no other WP:SECONDARY coverage that I can find that is specifically about him. And its nothing like enough. scope_creep^Talk 05:42, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:38, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I will go through the reference and look at them in detail in the next couple of days to see what is what. scope_creep^Talk 06:02, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, I have seen a few articles about him from reliable sources that prove notability. One of them in my quick look was the Washingtonian February 3 article "Paul Levy, the Web Bully’s Worst Enemy", which also made me laugh out loud. Collectively regular coverage in Reason and New York Times, it satisfies me. He sounds like an interesting man. He's also got my interest too. Karl Twist (talk) 08:14, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep inclined to say that he is on this side of GNG. Andre🚐 03:09, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence free !voting there I see. scope_creep^Talk 16:20, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Lets look at the references:

• Ref 1 [11] That is self-written profile. Not independent.
• Ref 2 [12] Secondary source.
• Ref 3 [13] Not about him. Its a passing mention.
• Ref 4 [14] CV. Not independent.
• Ref 5 Non-rs
• Ref 6 [15] That is a spam and will need to be removed.
• Ref 7 [16] Another passing mention.
• Ref 8 [17] Passing mention.
• Ref 9 [18] Passing mention.
• Ref 10 [19] Not independent.
• Ref 11 404
• Ref 12 [20] The docket. Non-rs
• Ref 13 [21] Not independent.
• Ref 14 [22] A short quote from him. Not independent.

The first two blocks of references, 2 non-rs, 5 not-independent, 4 passing mentions, a 404, a spam link and 1 secondary source that reads like a puff piece. This is a WP:BLP. Its states in that policy Wikipedia must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources The sources are atrocious. They are crap. There is no other way to desribe them. scope_creep^Talk 16:20, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why isn't the Justia RS? It is a primary source and I saw nothing on RSP about Justia being unreliable. Many of the sources corroborating this person's existence are court dockets. And what is wrong with Washingtonian being a secondary source? "Levy, an attorney with the Public Citizen Litigation Group who has represented union dissidents" in the Michigan Law Review articles on JSTOR, "Paul Alan Levy , an attor ney with the Public Citizen Litigation Group in Washington, D.C." on the ABA Journal, his book was cited by the NLRB... Andre🚐 06:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Court dockets don't prove notability. They are records of mandatory attendance and that all you can say about them. They don't confer notability and notability is not inhereted off them. There is nothing wrong with the Washingtonian source as a secondary ref. But it needs more than source to prove a person is notable. This is a WP:BLP. Not a article about some song. WP:THREE is standard here per established consensus (summer before last). 3 secondary sources will do it. scope_creep^Talk 08:27, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

His own work doesn't towards notability unless its been reviewed and published by external reviewers (not social media). So far I've not seen any evidence to contrary that any of his work is notable. scope_creep^Talk 08:30, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see the dockets (Justia) machine generated is non-rs generally. scope_creep^Talk 08:30, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]