Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Law

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shortcuts
Deletion Sorting
Project

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. 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: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:
Purge page cache watch

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

See also: Crime-related deletions.


Law

[edit]

Last will and testament of Herbert Macaulay

[edit]
Last will and testament of Herbert Macaulay (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)

Copied to Wikisource by me - s:Last will and testament of Herbert Macaulay, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, no reason to keep here. —Matrix(!) ping onewhen replying {u - t? - uselessc} 20:19, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Probably also doesn't meet WP:GNG. —Matrix(!) ping onewhen replying {u - t? - uselessc} 20:20, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not suitable for Wikipedia. An editor from Mars (talk) 05:39, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rockland County recount

[edit]
Rockland County recount (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 article is based on misinformation that's trending on social media; it relies on a bunch of sketchy sources published in the past few days that uncritically repeat false claims of election fraud. (The "zero votes" thing is a result of Orthodox Jewish bloc voting. [1]) I could find one okay source, which is Snopes examining the claims [2], but one source is not enough to justify an article, especially since Snopes devotes a lot of coverage to ongoing viral claims that have no enduring notability. It might be possible to keep the article if more good sources emerge that properly characterize the lawsuit and/or the social media trend, but it would still need WP:TNT. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 22:42, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support deletion, per nom. Even if the sources were reliable, the topic does not merit its own article. Maybe a small subsection under the 2024 elections page, if anything. — That Coptic Guyping me! (talk) (contribs) 23:05, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This article seems to have been created to advocate for a conspiracy theory("As a result of this irregularity", framing of significance of discovering proceeding) and even if that conspiracy theory were true(which nothing seems to suggest) it would likely not warrant it's own page. Originalcola (talk) 07:28, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

José Ilidio Nascimento

[edit]
José Ilidio Nascimento (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 lawyer that doesn't have WP:SIGCOV to meet WP:GNG ZimZalaBim talk 03:55, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fabiano Zettel

[edit]
Fabiano Zettel (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 a Portuguese Wikipedia editor and have identified a pattern of promotional content originating from the account Editor.23.l. Unfortunately, the Portuguese-speaking community has not reached a definitive conclusion on the matter. This page is an example of what was mentioned: all the sources used are press releases issued by marketing companies, such as Dino, which operates specifically in this field. For those who are fluent in Portuguese, it is relatively easy to notice the similarities between the content of the cited sources and many other articles available online. This is a typical case of spam. Edmond Dantès d'un message? 21:29, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dario Item

[edit]
Dario Item (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 article was previously nominated for speedy deletion by at Draft by Spiderone under section G11 for CIO/ promotional issues. It was deleted under this section for unambigious advertising by Admin UtherSRG. After, it was recreated and moved to mainspace. New Pages reviewer SunDawn moved it back to draft as it still had serious issues, but the page was put back in main space again.

The issues brought up by experienced previous editors remain here-- This individual does not pass WP:GNG as they do not appear to have "received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." There is a passing mention of this person in the Financial Times that is used in an undue and highly over generalized way to "support" claims here. Similarly individual appears to run a news organization that is used here to support claims in the text. Ambassadors and minor "nobles" are generally non-notable.

A number of significant edits on this piece are by users who have only edited this article or closely related articles including Redredwoman, Darniel ramos garcia1980 and Ignatius Shitanda, which appear problematic. Nayyn (talk) 10:28, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - Looking at this, what really stands out is how consistently this person shows up as notable across totally different areas.
First, you've got high-level diplomatic work covered by big international organizations.
Plus, major financial news outlets aren't just mentioning them in passing,they're reporting on specific, impactful actions that actually matter.
And on top of that, there's formal recognition in official, publicly accessible registers.
This isn't just one-off mentions. it's a real public profile built from multiple angles. When you see that kind of consistent, independent coverage across diplomacy, finance, and official channels, it really drives home the point of encyclopedic relevance.
It directly answers what the Notability Guideline looks for: significant, reliable coverage from multiple independent sources across different spheres Wadurorsch (talk) 07:33, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While I appreciate @CROIX' local knowledge, I'm not persuaded Item is a "household name" in A&B. The only news coverage I can find is either low-quality or not more than a standard press releases. I don't see moving the article to draft as a solution, as that has already happened multiple times without improving the quality. What I am seeing is a lot of peacock prose with a suspicious amount of single-issue accounts focused on adding more low-quality referencing. — Arcaist (contr—talk) 14:18, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I didn't go through all references on the page as it is refbombed beyond belief, but the ones I did check were either dead links or trivial mentions. One reference (Ref. 18) is certainly in depth and secondary, but is so overflowing with praise that I have to wonder if it's a paid or otherwise somehow promotional content. No opinion on keep or delete. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 10:46, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP The individual received significant coverage both in relation to his reporting on the Credit Suisse AT1 case and his role as an ambassador. The following publications (just a few examples) are secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. Furthermore they dedicadet an entire article (and not a simple “passing mention”) to the individual in relation to the Credit Suisse AT1 Case:

- Financial Times "Meet the pizza-loving diplomat behind Antigua News's big Credit Suisse scoop"

- Finews "A Swiss Lawyer Is Leading The Charge In The Writedown Case Of CS"

- El Espanol "Darío Item, embajador de Antigua y Barbuda en España: "El caso Credit Suisse AT1 ha sido una expropiación""

- Dominica News Online "Antigua and Barbuda ambassador Dario Item makes sensational international scoop in Credit Suisse AT1 case"

- Antigua Observer (which is NOT antigua.news) "Investigations by pizza lover Antiguan diplomat led to major Credit Suisse revelation"

- EconomiaDigital “Credit Suisse mintió a sus clientes justo antes de caer asegurando que no había retiradas de dinero”

- Insideparadeplatz.ch "AT-1-Geschädigten platzt Kragen: Klage gegen St. Galler Richter – Inside Paradeplatz"

The following media outlets/agencies (again just a few examples) published an entire article dedicated to the individual in relation to his role as an ambassador:

- UNWTO "UNWTO and Antigua and Barbuda share vision of tourism for growth and opportunity"

- Yahoo Finance “Ambassador Dario Item on Antigua and Barbuda Prime Minister Gaston Browne Speech to the United Nations”

- Dominica News Online "Antigua & Barbuda's Foreign Affairs Minister praises Ambassador Dario Item as a game changer"

- Antigua Observer "Ambassador Dario Item advocates for more Antiguan and Barbudan missions to be established abroad"

- CadizDirecto: "Dario Item el hombre clave de Antigua y Barbuda en Europa"

- The European Financial Review “Dario Item, Ambassador of Antigua and Barbuda: How We Can Help it Bounce Back”

There are perhaps hundreds of articles about this individual online (Reuters, El Pais, Die Weltwoche, Tagesanzeiger, Corriere del Ticino, etc.). The media coverage is definitely significant. Mediascriptor (talk) 13:04, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, this is just becoming a WP:REFBOMB, much like the article itself (which at this point has significantly more references than e.g. the current German Defense Minister, and we probably wouldn't argue that Item is more notable than Pistorius).
Notability isn't the same as coverage. There are thousands of community leaders, politicians, or athletes that have plenty of news mentions and interviews without deserving a standalone article. Sources are a means to and end, not an end in themselves: the question is whether what's backed up by the sources about the subject is notable. Dozens of sources all rehashing the same 2-3 facts about the subject or summarizing yet another interview isn't good proof of his notability. Yes, he is the ambassador and UNWTO representative (as the article tells us with no less than 13 sources) and yes, he might have played a role in a scandal at Credit Suisse, although neither the scandal nor his contributions are even mentioned there despite being a GA.
As WP:GNG states, ""significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article." (emphasis mine). — Arcaist (contr—talk) 18:14, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: While the article is not necessarily in a perfect state, Dario Item is a household name in the country with extensive coverage in reliable sources. Item has been mentioned in some of the most reliable independent sources in the country’s media such as Antigua Observer (only newspaper in the country with a proper editorial staff) and the Antigua Broadcasting Service (only major television station in the country). A search for his name yields significant results. While the article is not impressive, and could be moved to draft space as an alternate measure, the subject fully meets the notability requirements for an article. CROIXtalk 13:36, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This guy fully meets the notability requirements for an article. His name has an extensive coverage in independent, authoritative and reliable sources. Furthermore, his revelations on the AT1 Credit Suisse case are of significant encyclopedic value..Juliannua (talk) 14:23, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I request that this vote be disregarded. This is a 10-year-old account with one total edit, which is this one. Given that there have been several suspicious accounts working on the article itself, there is a significant risk of sockpuppeting here. — Arcaist (contr—talk) 14:44, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is not true that I only have one edit. I have other edits in WIKI ES. You only need to look at the Edit Statistics. But even if I only had one edit, what difference would it make? Don't I have the same right to express my opinion as all the other editors? I see unnecessary aggression and bias in what you generally write.
@CROIX is a very experienced editor who lives in Antigua and Barbuda. If he writes that Dario Item is a “household name in the country” and “has been mentioned in some of the most reliable independent sources in the country’s media” such as Antigua Observer and ABS, how can you refute him without providing any concrete evidence and still expect to remain credible?
How can you, objectively, not consider the Financial Times to be authoritative?
In Spain, Dario Item is well known both as an ambassador and for his revelations on the Credit Suisse case. His name has appeared in many newspapers, including the highly authoritative El País (which interviews him often) and El Mundo, which interviewed him on the subject of the king's immunity (“La inviolabilidad del Rey, garantía de "estabilidad" en todas las monarquías parlamentarias de Europa” https://www.elmundo.es/espana/2021/02/23/603556b7fdddff256c8b4605.html). I have also seen significant media coverage in Switzerland. I don't think these facts are disputable. Juliannua (talk) 19:00, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Juliannua, yes all editors are able to weigh in on this conversation. What I think Arcaist is bringing up with the regard to editing history is that it appears some editors who have contributed here bring up concerns about the possibility of WP:SPA.

As the draft article and was speedily deleted under Promotional and CIO concerns earlier, and other experienced editors have previously raised concerns, Arcaist brings up a valid point here.

This is because a number of those involved are new editors (CreateAccou4343nt555, Ignatius Shitanda), have few edits on EN wikipedia (such as yourself, Eternaldao7, Sharkwriters), few recent edits on EN wikipedia (SY DIGITAL, Kerry muga) or when they have contributed more broadly, they have contributed significantly to articles about Item or entities/individuals connected to him (Antonio Pérez Villanueva, Darniel ramos garcia1980 Jesus Sanchez Herrera, Mediascriptor).
Nayyn (talk) 12:01, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not new, my account is from 2021. I know a good amount of Wikipedia policy and guidelines. You saying that I'm new to Wikipedia while being unable to check for my account age and contributions contributes to the fact you don't seem to really check into and know about Wikipedia policies and guidelines so well as you seem to make it. Using such argument of account age is not really useful in any way here and does not contribute to the discussion in any meaningful way and disperses attention, and there is policy/guideline against it.
14:27, 11 June 2025 (UTC) CreateAccou4343nt555 (talk) 14:27, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The subject clearly meets WP:GNG based on significant coverage in multiple, independent, and reliable secondary sources. It's quite surprising to see Nayyn claim the Financial Times piece is a "passing mention." The article, "Meet the pizza-loving diplomat behind Antigua News's big Credit Suisse scoop," is demonstrably about Dario Item and his role in the Credit Suisse affair, providing in-depth coverage, not a mere mention. This alone is a strong indicator of notability. Beyond the FT, Mediascriptor and Juliannua have already listed numerous other strong international sources like Finews ("A Swiss Lawyer Is Leading The Charge..."), El Espanol ("Darío Item, embajador de Antigua y Barbuda en España..."), and even the UNWTO ("UNWTO and Antigua and Barbuda share vision..."), which dedicate substantial reporting to Item's activities, both concerning Credit Suisse and his ambassadorial role. The sheer breadth of coverage across different countries and languages (Spanish, German-language Swiss, English) underscores a level of international notability that goes beyond just local interest.

I also agree with Juliannua; their points are valid, and their !vote should be considered on its merits. Disregarding a contribution based on edit count, especially when they articulate clear reasoning referencing sources like El País, isn't productive. Furthermore, CROIX's local knowledge as an experienced editor from Antigua and Barbuda, stating Item is a "household name" and well-covered locally, should carry weight when assessing regional significance.

Concerns about "ambassadors and minor nobles" being generally nonnotable (per Nayyn) seem selectively applied here. Wikipedia hosts articles for many ambassadors, including other Antiguan diplomats such as Karen-Mae Hill, Carl Roberts (diplomat), Walton Alfonso Webson, and Claudius Cornelius Thomas, some with arguably less international press than Item. If the notability criteria are met through independent significant coverage, the role itself isn't an automatic disqualifier. I'm not currently editing the article and have no COI; I'm simply bringing these points up for fair and neutral consideration. The evidence provided by multiple editors points to sufficient notability here, and I hope others will take a second look in light of the above. While the article might benefit from further refinement (as many do), the sourcing supports keeping it. Eternaldao7 (talk) 11:25, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The fundamental question for WP:GNG is whether the subject has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. In Dario Item's case, the evidence points to yes, specifically because these sources document a clear impact and influence he has had, particularly concerning the Credit Suisse AT1 bond affair. The Financial Times detailing his 'big Credit Suisse scoop,' Finews highlighting him 'leading the charge,' and El Espanol exploring his perspective as a key player, all speak to more than just passing interest – they document a person whose actions have had tangible, reported consequences and have generated significant discourse in international financial circles. This demonstrated influence, extensively covered by independent media, is precisely what establishes encyclopedic notability." Kerry muga (talk) 07:33, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP. Hello everyone. I've been reading through this discussion, and as someone who values Wikipedia as a place to learn about people shaping current events, I wanted to offer my thoughts. It seems to me that Dario Item is exactly the kind of individual one might reasonably expect to find information about here.
When a story like the Credit Suisse AT1 bond issue makes headlines internationally – and we see publications like the Financial Times writing dedicated pieces about "the pizza-loving diplomat behind Antigua News's big Credit Suisse scoop," or Finews explaining how "A Swiss Lawyer Is Leading The Charge" – it naturally sparks public interest.
People will wonder, "Who is this person at the center of this significant financial news?"
To me, that's where Wikipedia's role becomes so important. It's not just about whether someone is a "celebrity" in the traditional sense, but whether they've become a figure of public discussion due to their actions or involvement in noteworthy events. The articles in El Español, and even reports from places like Dominica News Online or the Antigua Observer about his diplomatic work and the Credit Suisse revelations, show that his activities are being discussed across different countries and contexts.
It feels like the core question of "has this person done something that made reliable, independent news outlets talk about them in a significant way?" is clearly answered with a "yes" here. The fact that he's also an ambassador, involved with the UNWTO, and has received various recognitions just adds more layers to why someone might be looking him up.
If parts of the article needed tidying up, that's what editing is for, and it sounds like good work has already been done on that front. But to remove the article entirely would feel like missing an opportunity to document someone who has demonstrably stepped into the public sphere through actions that have drawn considerable, legitimate media attention. It just seems like information people would genuinely be seeking. Sharkwriters (talk) 07:46, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep My assessment is that the subject, Dario Item, satisfies the General Notability Guideline (WP:GNG). This is based on the presence of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources, particularly concerning his activities related to the Credit Suisse AT1 situation and his ambassadorial functions. Several specific publications provide coverage that appears to meet the depth required by WP:GNG: The Financial Times article dedicates substantial content to Mr. Item's role and actions, which constitutes more than a passing mention. Finews similarly focuses on him as a central figure in a noteworthy event. El Español offers an extensive profile, indicating significant interest from a major international publication. These sources are generally accepted as reliable and editorially independent. And these are just 3 of the many international sources other editors already mentioned and can be found in reference footnotes of Item’s article. The subject's diplomatic roles and interactions, such as with the UNWTO ([link, e.g., https://www.unwto.org/news/unwto-and-antigua- and-barbuda-share-vision-of-tourism-for-growth-and-opportunity]), provide further context of a public profile. While notability isn't inherited from a position, significant media coverage of activities undertaken within such roles contributes to fulfilling WP:GNG. Recognitions like the Scottish titles (referenced under legislation such as s.63 of the Abolition of Feudal Tenure etc. (Scotland) Act 2000 - [3]) and awards (e.g., from the Royal House of Georgia - [4]) are supplementary details that round out the individual's public record, though the primary basis for Wikipedia notability remains the independent secondary source coverage. The existence of articles for other Antiguan diplomats, as noted by other editors here, suggests that holding such a position is not an automatic bar to notability if WP:GNG is otherwise met. The key consideration is whether this specific individual has garnered sufficient independent coverage, and the evidence regarding Mr. Item's role in the widely- reported Credit Suisse case, in particular, points to this. While any article can benefit from ongoing editorial attention to ensure neutrality and sourcing precision, the available information indicates that the notability threshold for inclusion has been crossed. I think he has enough recognition to be considered in WP:GNG as his fellow peers also have their pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SY DIGITAL (talk • contribs) 08:08, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: This article and its subject clearly passes Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Notability (people) criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia and the following is proof of that, falsifying the deletion nominator's argument. First, the following Wikipedia:Reliable sources are the findings of my independent research for sources on Google that cover the subject Dario Item which asserts notability criteria by providing significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources:

I easily found the above and many more sources covering Dario Item by using the following Google search string: 

"Dario Item" -site:darioitem.* -site:dario-item.com -site:embassy.ag -site:medium.com -site:instagram.com -site:x.com -site:twitter.com -site:youtube.com -site:facebook.com -site:linkedin.com -site:wikipedia.org -site:pinterest.com -site:academia.edu

User:Nayyn did not provide any policy or guideline for their claim that "Ambassadors and minor 'nobles' are generally non-notable." Actually, WP:DIPLOMAT says that "For any individual (including therefore any diplomat) who meets the WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO criteria, we presume that an article about them is merited", as proved above with many reliable sources. Also, prior discussion on notability have been had that "Ambassadors (and equivalent, such as High Commissioners, UN Permanent Representatives and EU Permanent Representatives) would be presumed notable". As such, this Nayyn's argument doesn't has any evident value and is disposable.

User:Nayyn didn't provide any police or guideline on why the users edits' they mentioned would be actually problematic. The way they put it, seems as an appeal to authority logical fallacy. As such, this argument doesn't has any evident value and is disposable.

User:Arcaist didn't provide any evidence for their claims. A simple research easily results in reliable sources, as demonstrated above.

What could be argued is that, naturally, further improvements could be made to the article. I personally added 3 reliable sources to it.

CreateAccou4343nt555 (talk) 09:45, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CreateAccou4343nt555 welcome to Wikipedia! As you are new here, let me be a bit more detailed in my concerns about this article and why I brought it to this forum. Hopefully this can provide a bit more understanding as Wikipedia has a lot of policies that can be somewhat confusing to navigate for on your first day here.

Regarding notability-- When it comes to the amount of sources out there about Item, having sources is no guarantee that a person is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Individuals must fulfill the general notability guideline with significant coverage in independent sources. Ambassadors are usually not considered inherently notable, but it is a case by case basis. WP:DIPLOMAT is an essay, not an official policy. I'm not convinced that because he's an ambassador he's notable, feel free to disagree, that's why we have this discussion here. While there are reliable sources that have been added that confirm his role, I'm not sure his accomplishments as ambassador fulfill the requirements of WP:ANYBIO.

Regarding his notability as a journalist: While the Credit Suisse case brought attention to Mr. Item and provides WP:RS on him, it is a case of WP:1E. I haven't seen enduring coverage of him as a journalist with the exception of this case. On Wikipedia, notability is not temporary. Currently the reliance on the scoop and one Financial Times article appears to take an WP:Undue weight when it comes to assessing Item's notability. Just because WP:ITSINTHENEWS doesn't mean that someone is notable.

Regarding his notability re his nobility: While Item claims many "noble" honors, I have concerns if any of them fulfill WP:ANYBIO given that it appears he is in the business of assisting others in obtaining these and works for one of the entities that confers such awards. Other claims of notability that he is married to a celebrity do not fulfill the criterion either.

I nominated the article for these reasons. The requirements for sourcing for Living Persons on Wikipedia are high and require reliability.

Beyond notability, I also raised some concerns about the independence and neutrality of this article. While neutrality concerns cannot be a reason to delete an article, given the way the article has been edited, my concerns about WP:SPIP and WP:COI remain. These have not alleviated by the nature of this deletion discussion. Please see my comment here where I explain my concerns about WP:SPA and WP:NPOV.

CreateAccou4343nt555, I hope that the above explanation makes sense. Please remember, this is my personal view -- and anyone is welcome to disagree! That's why this forum exists for others to weigh in and for consensus to be made. But please be respectful in your discussion, as comments such as "Nayyn's argument doesn't has any evident value and is disposable" as you did above, appear uncivil and against Wikipedia policies for these things.
Welcome to Wikipedia and I hope you enjoy your first day here :-) Nayyn (talk) 13:40, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not new, my account is from 2021. I know a good amount of Wikipedia policy and guidelines. You saying that I'm new to Wikipedia while being unable to check for my account age and contributions contributes to the fact you don't seem really check into and know about Wikipedia policies and guidelines so well as you seem to make it. Using such argument of account age is not really useful in any way here and does not contribute to the discussion in any meaningful way and disperses attention, and there is policy/guideline against it.

The link in "having sources is no guarantee that a person is suitable for inclusion" is an essay, not an official policy or guideline. The sources I provided fulfill WP:GNG because it "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.", it is easily verifiable. Wikipedia:Notability (politics) is a failed proposal, not a policy, guideline, or even an essay, thus this argument lacks evident value and is disposable. As in the sources I provided, consensus is that diplomats are notable and fulfill criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia. With all the multiple reliable, independent, secondary sources I provided, it's obvious the subject passes WP:BASIC criteria: "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." AND "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.".

There are multiple reliable, independent sources provided that fulfill Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Notability (people) which are enough for inclusion on Wikipedia, so WP:SPIP and WP:COI don't actually apply here as deletion criteria of the whole article.

There is no actual good evidence basis for deleting this article, what should be done is that the article should be kept and further improved. Please, help with that following my example of for example adding reliable sources.
CreateAccou4343nt555 (talk) 14:16, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake, just noticed your talk page created today! Welcome back! Nayyn (talk) 14:25, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My talk page was created in 2021... I really don't know what you're talking about.CreateAccou4343nt555 (talk) 14:35, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said in my reply to Mediascriptor, notability isn't the same as coverage. We don't need another 9 sources all saying that he's the ambassador, or 10 online sources all repeating his three quotes on the supposed Credit Suisse scandal. Such WP:REFBOMBs do not help a notability claim if all they do is state the same thing, but in a bunch of different outlets. The question is whether what is being said in those sources makes him notable. As WP:GNG states, "significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article." (emphasis mine).
The Credit Suisse section is both a case of WP:1E, full of grandiose claims about Item's importance not covered by the sources (he "significantly contributed towards public understanding", "being prominently covered", "continued to publish significant revelations", "published a new scoop", "recognized by the international press as a primary source for comprehending the Credit Suisse AT1s case", etc.), and seemingly not important enough to be featured at Credit Suisse.
I don't believe what's given in those sources reaches WP:GNG, and neither do some others in this discussion. You're free to think otherwise, which is why we're having this discussion. But let's not make it look like his notability is beyond all questioning just because a Google search produces some results. — Arcaist (contr—talk) 18:35, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Giacomo Merello

[edit]
Giacomo Merello (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 individual does not pass WP:GNG or fulfill the requirements for WP:BIO as this person has "not received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." Coverage of this individual in media is routine or passing mentions. Some of the sources do not appear reliable or particularly independent.

The argued notability of this person by editors that have removed prior tags appears to hinge on certain "honors" such as the "Order of the Eagle of Georgia" and the conception of "Lord Leslie" while these honors might sound significant it appears that honors like these can apparently be acquired without much difficulty (according to a source that was previously cited in the text by one of the contributors and later removed).

Another concern is that a number of the key contributors of this article appear to be very close to the subject including HearldicFacts and Mediascriptor. Another key contributor was previously blocked for sockpuppettry Judasith1234 which is not a good sign. Nayyn (talk) 15:01, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Only passing coverage in low-quality sources. Worth mentioning that HeraldicFacts added a picture to the article which was uploaded by Judasith1234 to Commons 19 minutes prior, so another likely sockpuppet.
— Arcaist (contr—talk) 14:02, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, @Arcaist - I will not take a position on this page retention, however just to clarify yours and @Naayn comment on "sockpuppetry", it was a misunderstanding of 6 months ago, which was opened in a sockpuppetry debate and resolved through a discussion and a final decision of several Admins, that ended with the deletion of user Judasith1234. It is unfair and incorrect to motivate a further deletion proposal based on this specific topic as it was already discussed and resolved in full previously. HeraldicFacts (talk) 07:55, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP The subject meets WP:GNG through multiple non-trivial, independent sources covering his diplomatic and cultural roles. While some honours may appear unusual, they’ve been reported by independent media and involve internationally recognised institutions, not self-promotion. Rather than deletion, improvement is the constructive path forward, especially given existing sources and the subject’s international footprint. Kellycrak88 (talk) 16:27, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Giacomo Merello clearly meets Wikipedia’s notability criteria per WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Multiple reliable, independent secondary sources provide significant coverage of his career and roles, beyond routine mentions. Concerns about the subject’s honors and the contributors’ proximity do not negate the existence of independent sources demonstrating notability. Below, I outline the sources and relevant policies supporting retention of the article. Roles and impact: the coverage centers on his notable roles – as a Special Economic Envoy of Antigua and Barbuda, as a legal expert in digital assets and legal heraldry, examples 1. https://expatliving.sg/antigua-and-barbuda-citizenship-by-investment-and-coat-of-arms/Expat Living - this interview is a secondary source (Merello is the interviewee, with the magazine providing context) and offers significant biographical detail, demonstrating coverage in an independent publication; 2. https://www.henleyglobal.com/events/henley-partners-presents-celebration-caribbean about his activities as diplomat; 3. https://www.vietnam.vn/en/viet-nam-truoc-nga-re-tai-san-so-tin-chi-carbon about a seminar held for the State Bank of Vietnam. 4. https://antigua.news/2025/05/17/bridging-oceans-and-opportunities-giacomo-merello-on-promoting-antigua-and-barbuda-in-singapore-and-in-asia/ Antigua News - this is far beyond a trivial mention – it’s a full profile of his activities and impact, published by an independent news source (not a press release); 5. Multiple other independent articles about him from VIR and Malta Invest;  6. https://www.liveranionline.com/immagini/118224/retrospettiva-marcella-bella-cantante-con-il-figlio-giacomo-merello-nel-1985 ; https://dilei.it/spettacolo/marcella-bella-figlio-giacomo-singapore/1279204/ ; https://www.wemusic.it/marcella-bella-chi-sono-e-cosa-fanno-nella-vita-i-figli-carolina-tommaso-e-giacomo/ are all articles directly about him in connection to his very notable singer mother Marcella Bella, and not just as a routine mention, these are all independent secondary sources and are not "routine mentions" but the subject is the main topic. These roles have been covered in context by third-party sources, indicating he is a “significant, interesting, or unusual enough” person to deserve an encyclopedia entry, as per WP:GNG. The titles on their own may not necessarily meet by themselves WP:BIO, but in connection with all the rest, they definitely support and they have multiple mention in secondary sources on their own, like Debrett's, RSN, and Royal House of Georgia. On the Scottish Feudal Baronies there is currently in place an editing war which makes deletion based on that also shaky and not well thought. COI claim is vague and per WP:COI policy, an article should not be deleted solely due to who edited it, especially if just to fix objective links and factual elements, and any promotional tone wascleaned up by neutral editors in line with WP:NPOV and WP:RS. Mediascriptor (talk) 18:00, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Executive Order 14147

[edit]
Executive Order 14147 (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 utterly baffled as to why this Trumpcruft needs its own article. It has barely anything to it. It doesn't have any significant coverage in reliable sources, even from the time of its signing and publication, and it certainly does not have any enduring notability. We already have a very lengthy list of executive orders. We do not need a wee stub for every single one, no matter how insignificant (and this one is so clearly insignificant). Grnrchst (talk) 21:49, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Escape of Traitors Act 1572

[edit]
Escape of Traitors Act 1572 (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)

Couldn't find any independent reliable secondary coverage. Topic doesn't meet WP:GNG. Legend of 14 (talk) 15:21, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Eddie891 Talk Work 15:08, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Treason Act 1399

[edit]
Treason Act 1399 (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)

Couldn't find sufficient reliable, independent, secondary coverage that this warrants inclusion on Wikipedia under the GNG. Legend of 14 (talk) 14:39, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Continuance of Laws Act 1780

[edit]
Continuance of Laws Act 1780 (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)

Couldn't find a single source that this topic warrants inclusion on Wikipedia, under WP:NOTABLE. Legend of 14 (talk) 19:45, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:46, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As far as I can tell, the only purpose of this act was to extend one prior act of Parliament (regarding importation of silk), and for less than two years, until 1781. As a second choice, merge per Mauls. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:11, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Expiring laws continuance legislation rather than delete. The page name is a plausible redirect: it appears in Current Law Statutes: [11]. The content is verifiable with independent sources [12] [13] and is useful for other articles. The importation of Italian organzined silk was very important at that time due to the American War: [14] [15] (which was, by this time, a World War against the French, Spanish and Dutch, taking place in Europe and India). Ideally, this should be discussed in an article on the silk trade, but Expiring laws continuance legislation will do for now, unless someone identifies a better target. I absolutely oppose deletion. James500 (talk) 22:50, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Law&oldid=1295387092"