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

Adrianos Facchetti

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

BLP article that does not appear to meet Wikipedia's requirements for notability. Sources 1, 2, 3, and 14 are list/database entries. The latter three of those are effectively advertisements. 4 is the subject's own website. 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, and 13 are passing mentions. 7 and 8 don't actually mention the subject at all, unless I'm missing something. 12 is a press release. My searches online did not yield any in-depth coverage by independent sources. Squeakachu (talk) 03:33, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Law. Squeakachu (talk) 03:33, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:35, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Holborn Adams

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

Does not meet GNG and sounds a bit promotional. Uncle Bash007 (talk) 09:02, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Uncle Bash007 Thank you for your other message and feedback. I created the page because a link existed on another page that was red and didn't go to a page that existed. Wikipedia therefore suggested page creation and I have seen other similar pages so assumed this was fine so long as there are notable references available. The references are all news articles. I have made some changes in line with your feedback to make sure the copy is purely informational. It is not intended to be promotional but factual and I hope this improves it. There were also links on other Wikipedia pages to this page that should now work rather than link to a page that does not exist. Are these improvements suitable? Greenfieldsgreentrees (talk) 09:31, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 09:44, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:50, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm so I'm kind of unsure where to go with this one... On the one hand the topic does seem notable but on the other there do appear to be genuine concerns about promotion with some coverage reading almost as paid (see [1] for example). I would say leaning keep for now with a mind to revisit in a year or two when more editors than just this one have had a crack at the article. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:33, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your feedback @Horse Eye's Back. I created the article because there was a link to this page in red on another page that wasn't working, so Wikipedia suggested article creation. I have made some improvements to it in line with what another editor suggested. I thought that a wider selection of news sources would be useful, which is why that one was used, but I see your point about that coverage reading promotional in tone so I have removed it as I understand the importance of articles being neutral and purely informational. Greenfieldsgreentrees (talk) 07:26, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2038 in public domain

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

The year 2038 in public domain doesn't seem to have received the required attention to make this a notable topic, and we have no idea at all whether the current laws regulating what will be public domain in 2038 will be the same by then anyway, making this a WP:CRYSTAL violation. Fram (talk) 11:48, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This DOES NOT make them a WP:Crystal violation at all an is based on actual current state of copyright law in the US and other countries.

If that's true, then we woud have to remove all pages except for 2025 and before, please unnomiamte these for deletion ZigZagTheTigerSkunk (talk) 16:36, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (2030), weak keep (2031-2034) - for the same reasons as Foxtrot620. There's a very good case for keeping these lists five years in the future, and they are used (e.g. by wikisource and others for planning what to digitise). The case is less strong further out, and personally I wouldn't be bothering to work on something more than ten years out. If future articles seem incomplete, the answer is to do the work required to complete them (which will mostly be the +50 and US sections, since those bits are actually novel), rather than delete them. IdiotSavant (talk) 21:36, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

i agree with IdiotSavant. These pages are me and my friend Seths' hard work and just deleiting it is just stupid.. ZigZagTheTigerSkunk (talk) 21:46, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep For the same reasons stated above. These will eventually be relevant and some clear work has gone into them. There is no WP:Crystal violation that I can see. We know there will be IP entering the public domain in 2038. Dflovett (talk) 20:25, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For basically the same reasons, I also nominated the following ones for deletion:

Weak Delete (2035-37), Weak Keep (2031-2034), Strong Keep (2030): So, my logic here is entirely built in time frame. 35-37 is too far in the future for any kind of certainty; as such is a clear issue of WP:CRYSTAL. For 31-34, and 30, my argument is essentially the same, though the level I am willing to die on the hill is different. Given 2030 is five years in the future, I think that is more than qualifies as both almost certain to happen, and notable, as per the WP:CRYSTAL exceptions; short of some major new international copyright treaty, or some major move for copyright law change in a major country; nothing will change between now and then. For 31-34, I would argue the same, though the time frame grants more uncertainty. 35-37 is ten or more years in the future, and I think it's outside of the realm of Wikipedia. Personally, ten years seems to be a good standard for me, but I would also support a five year policy for this sort of thing. Then again, the U.S. Senate could introduce Sonny Bono Act II tomorrow and next years list could suddenly require major changes, so, I think we have to be okay with a certain amount of uncertainty in these articles. Foxtrot620 (talk) 16:50, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:53, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete these pages.. ZigZagTheTigerSkunk (talk) 16:34, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think deleting the pages would be a good thing at all, and also i doubt any extentsion will ever happen, likely neer will. ZigZagTheTigerSkunk (talk) 17:03, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the pages for 2030–2034, draftify those for 2035–2037 to be restored to mainspace later, and speedy delete 2038's page, as well as the following year's page 2039 in public domain, outright. This project has just gone too far out of scope. – SethAllen623 (talk), 01:04, June 26, 2025 (UTC).

Can anyone indicate why e.g. 2032 in public domain is at the moment a notable subject? Which reliable sources have dealt with this specifically? Fram (talk) 07:32, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable Sources is duke university and other websites.. ZigZagTheTigerSkunk (talk) 16:51, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can you be slightly more specific? I checked the 2038 and the 2030 page, and neither seems to use anything from Duke as a reference. The pages all have generic references about public domain and expiry, but nothing about these years. Fram (talk) 17:11, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The issue of notability and reliable sources is no different with these articles than with the articles for 2026, 2027, 2028, and 2029. Reliable sources may not exist now, but we know they will come in the future. Here is who we know will discuss these topics at the appropriate time: Duke University School of Law (which publishes articles for "Public Domain Day" on an annual basis) for general entrants to the U.S. public domain, The Daily Cartoonist (specifically for entrants relating to animation and comics), and at least one law library. Additionally, for years that will see very notable works enter the U.S. public domain, we may see one or two news articles discuss the entry of these works specifically. As for the international PD entrants, we have had no sourcing issues with them in the past in any of our "public domain by year" articles – neither those for the 2020s, nor 2019's page, nor those for the years before the moratorium on U.S. public domain entrants imposed by the Copyright Term Extension Act expired. If we did, then you would be nominating the entire category and all the pages in it for deletion. – SethAllen623 (talk), 17:32, June 26, 2025 (UTC).
We don´t create articles where the sources will be available in 5, 10, 15 years. If it isn´t of interest to reliable sources now or before now, we shouldn´t have an article on them. That´s a principle throughout enwiki, why would we make an exception for these? Fram (talk) 18:50, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bruh, please do not delete the pages. We worked so hard on them and they are allowed and do not violate WP: Crystal.

so please unnominate these for deletion ZigZagTheTigerSkunk (talk) 19:36, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Perry v. Cyphers

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

I haven't been able to find significant coverage in the available sources. Seems that there are only passing mentions. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:39, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Discrimination, Law, and Texas. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:39, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Jim Crow laws#Decline and removal and then redirect. Essentially, what a circuit court decided in 1951 was news in 1952, but has since faded into obscurity. A sentence or two, and a redirect, is fine. I feel slightly guilt-ridden to write this on Juneteenth, but a smerge is appropriate here. Bearian (talk) 22:18, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this would be due for inclusion in the Jim Crow article since it only has brief mentions in secondary sources. The source just added by Maile66 is representative of the paucity of coverage of this case, stating, in full: "Determined to remove this subterfuge to voting, Fred Lewis and several other Blacks, assisted by the NAACP, filed suit in Perry v. Cyphers in 1948." voorts (talk/contributions) 00:41, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for a possible Merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:03, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I added a source on this from the Handbook of Texas online. It could use more text and sourcing, but this was a big voting rights occurrence in Texas at the time. — Maile (talk) 00:39, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I also just added a Google link (looks like the Times Daily in Alabama) that covered the legal events on this. — Maile (talk) 01:30, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's a primary source AP report. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:39, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One transaction rule

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

WP:DICDEF that really can simply be mentioned in Australian legal system. ZimZalaBim ^talk 17:46, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 18:02, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to a reasonable target, with a smerge of the single citation. Bearian (talk) 02:48, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Sentence (law) to expand on concurrent/consecutive sentences. Otherwise just stands as a WP:DICDEF // PYRiTEmonark // talk // 16:22, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per others, although I'm not convinced of either of the targets suggested so far. Sentence (law) doesn't mention Australian law at all so I think mentioning this somewhat obscure Australian sentencing principle would be fairly out of place. Australian legal system is a much more high-level overview of the framework and origins of Australia's legal system and barely mentions criminal law. Ideally this would redirect to the article Criminal sentencing in Australia (similar to articles like Criminal sentencing in the United States and Sentencing in England and Wales), but that article does not yet exist. So I think the best place for this information for now would probably instead be Criminal law of Australia. MCE89 (talk) 13:53, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I got ahead of myself with my merge target suggestion. As far as I can tell, a similar rule to this one applies in multiple legal systems, including Criminal sentencing in the United States, but isn't really expanded on there or in Sentence (law), so I'd hoped that this article could provide a launching point for describing this common rule. // PYRiTEmonark // talk // 10:09, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is more than one target article mentioned here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:39, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Case Lawrence

AfDs for this article:

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

Promotional COI article moved from draftspace after being declined multiple times. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:23, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Arizona. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:29, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Politicians, Law, Latter Day Saints, Hungary, California, and Utah. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:30, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most of the high-quality sourcing is about his company, which already has its own page. Don't see why Lawrence deserves his own page. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 20:26, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NPOL and WP:NOTINHERITED. As an unsuccessful candidate, he's not notable for that reason. He's also not automatically notable because he's lead organizations or businesses. I don't see WP:SIGCOV, and he fails my person standards for lawyers (there is no consensus). Bearian (talk) 04:02, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I would appreciate help to make this article more solid. I'm still learning. Case Lawrence is a very influential figure in Utah business and politics. I have not been paid to make edits on this article. I moved article to the mainspace because I didn't know it had to wait to be reviewed. I understand if it must be deleted. I would appreciate any advice on how to keep pages up. Madlaiscott (talk) 10:49, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the article, I think you've done a good job of keeping things focused on the subject. (And no, there is no rule that you need approval or a draft process to move to mainspace, but you should probably know that doing so against a review is likely to attract an AfD). My advice is to find the ten least significant facts/links in the article (especially those that are not particularly important and are about SkyZone/CircusTrix and not Lawrence) and remove them -- the article looks like someone is trying to make a minor business person seem important by bombarding the reader with lots of tiny assertions of notability instead of focusing on the 5 or 6 sources that actually confirm his notability. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 13:47, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your input. I really appreciate it. I will attempt to make those changes you advised. Madlaiscott (talk) 20:11, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep by WP:GNG for multiple independent sources covering him as an influential business figure (in addition to, and of course in part because of, his success in the trampoline world). There are headline stories about him in Deseret News, a significant news publisher, and Utah Business (which seems to be from the same company but independent editorials) and, also among less significant news sources, the Utah Valley University review and the BYU Marriott Business School review. The first Inc. story is largely about Lawrence's success in addition to the company's success as is the Sacramento Bee story (the LA Times story is about the company and doesn't mention Lawrence directly). Would not pass WP:NPOL or WP:PROF, but only one notability guideline needs to be passed and the amount of news about Lawrence himself is enough to pursuade me to !vote Keep. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 13:42, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Enos733 (talk) 22:38, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Lawrence has had many articles written about him both in Utah as well as Forbes and Inc.. He is a pioneer and leader of his industry. He is a notable figure in Utah for his entrepreneurship as well as political involvement in many facets. The citations and references are there, they just could use more organizing and help from more experienced editors. Driftsignal97 (talk) 14:47, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Driftsignal97 its important to disclose your WP:COI in this discussion, if you are going to vote here. Nayyn (talk) 22:35, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize, I thought the disclosure I have on my user page was sufficient. I was originally paid by media company, Fluid, who did work for Case Lawrence. I was the original creator of the Case Lawrence article. Driftsignal97 (talk) 17:07, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to CircusTrix per WP:NPOL and WP:NOTINHERITED. Nayyn (talk) 22:31, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG There are multiple headline articles about Lawrence. He has plenty of references to use. He is referenced in at least two other Wikipedia articles also. He has a lot more references than a lot of other pages... Compare this page to other notable business and political figures in Utah especially. Madlaiscott (talk) 10:12, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Steven E. North

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

Recreation of article deleted at AfD in 2024. (Prior AfD discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steven E North.) I don't think much has changed since then; sources in the article certainly do not support notability. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 18:30, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Law, and New York. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 18:30, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

=== Keep ===

Keep – My apologies, I didn’t know that this page had been deleted before. I created this page in good faith as I believe the topic meets Wikipedia’s notability guidelines. I have cleaned up the page, and I believe that now the subject meets the criteria for inclusion, for which I support and vote to keep the page. ~~~~ TrueandWise (talk) 00:47, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the significant coverage in reliable independent sources? I see a passing mention in an old NYTimes article, and nothing else. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 10:04, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging participants of prior AfD: Bearian,voorts. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 10:07, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I can't remember exactly what the old article focused on, but I believe it was on his personal injury work. This new article is focused on his prosecution experience. It's almost as if they draftified it and rewrote it into a real article, based on the advice I would've given. Bearian (talk) 13:24, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per previous AfD. All of the sources are either brief mentions, primary sources, AI-generated trash, or press releases. There is just no indication that this attorney is notable. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:01, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Voorts. OPHYRIUS ^⚔ 07:07, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:55, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Doesn't seem to pass WP:GNG. I don't see sources that are all 4 significant, reliable, independent, and secondary. Just from the article itself:
- NY Times - Passing mention about his job position
- Brooklaw.edu - Not independent (from subject's alma mater Brooklyn Law School)
- MSN - Source is down/no longer available
- Law.com - Primary source/not independent (court listing)
- Big News Network, from "Busines NewsWire" - Press release
- New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct - Primary source/not independent (court listing)
- TodayNews - Unreliable
- Merson Law - Not significant/independent; law office listing
- Super Lawyers - Not significant/independent; lawyer listing
- Paper written by North - Not independent - Whisperjanes (talk) 03:50, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep There is one good reference [2], but this is not sufficient to claim notability. LKBT (talk) 10:00, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's a one sentence mention. Yes, it's in the NY Times, but one sentence does not make it a good reference. Lamona (talk) 02:30, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I only find promotional sources, along with a few one-sentence mentions. The MSN link fails even with a search in that website. I removed a few refs that failed verification, but really the whole article fails notability. Lamona (talk) 02:53, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As per Bearian , this new article is focused on his prosecution experience. The revised version seems much better. Valiceo (talk) 13:30, 23 June 2025 (UTC) — Valiceo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Update: And is now blocked for UPE.[reply]
Delete. Whisperjanes's source assessment is accurate. There is no independent sigcov. Bearian's assertion that the article is much improved also leaves me puzzled, as it reads like a CV, especially with the opening sentence "works to represent persons who suffer injuries caused by medical malpractice". Toadspike [Talk] 05:43, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Giacomo Merello

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Italy. Nayyn (talk) 15:01, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Law, Singapore, and Antigua and Barbuda. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:15, 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]

Have you done a WP:Before on this individual? Which of the references would you consider to be "non-trivial, independent sources"? I struggle to find a source that would be considered either to support this individual's dubious claim to notability. If editing is the way forward, how would you propose to edit this piece so that it is appropriate? I'm afraid WP:AKON applies here. Nayyn (talk) 23:02, 15 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Note that Mediascriptor has been blocked as a sock.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:43, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

keep I was doing a random round of edits and came across this one. As I did that before, I thought my knowledge could benefit Wikipedia. Anyway, I think according to WP:NONENG Italian sources could be added and are reliable. And, according to WP:ANYBIO The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor the subject seems notable. Also, I have seen discussions where admins say that even a single reliable source is enough for notability verification. AppleBoosted (talk) 09:08, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What is the "well-known and significant award" you are referring to here, @AppleBoosted? Nayyn (talk) 10:16, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Knight Grand Cross (GCEG) of the Order of the Eagle of Georgia. Seems an important honor for those people and region. Anyway, that was my analysis as per my knowledge and research on topics of Wikipedia. Thank you! AppleBoosted (talk) 20:38, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
if you read the article... Merello works for the organization that hands out this "honor" and helps people acquire such titles.. this is his business. So I can't imagine that we can consider it independent of anything. Nayyn (talk) 21:11, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:BIO, as its sources are clearly insufficient or trivial. The few reputable sources are passing mentions or focus on his family (His mother and uncle meet some criteria), not his professional activities – no significant coverage in reliable sources, not even from Italy or the country he supposedly represents at diplomatic level. XICO (talk) 17:03, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note with Added material - non vote. This is not a vote as I know the subject and may have COI, but for completeness I want to share further additional info and material supporting WP:GNG, WP:BIO, WP:ANYBIO, WP:NONENG. All is WP:RS and WP:V for everyone and closer admin to have a fair, broader view. None of these appear currently in the article.

https://thoibaonganhang.vn/tan-dung-kinh-nghiem-quoc-te-de-viet-nam-quan-ly-tai-san-dien-tu-hieu-qua-163455.html (This is the Vietnam Banking Times, piece all on subject);

https://daibieunhandan.vn/tai-san-so-tin-chi-carbon-co-phai-la-tai-san-bao-dam-10370864.html (this is Vietnam's official parliamentary press);

https://vnba.org.vn/en/digital-assets--carbon-credits-expected-to-be-collateral-in-bank-loans-17452.htm totally independent news article;

Series of other articles on Vietnam Investment review (which is State-linked):

https://vir.com.vn/the-tropical-paradise-that-appeals-to-travellers-and-investors-121662.html ; https://vir.com.vn/a-comparative-investment-guide-to-singapore-and-malta-124553.html ; https://vir.com.vn/navigating-offshore-opportunities-in-a-globalised-world-123277.html ;

a prime time TV show on Singapore Channel Five, called Makan Times Stories, also features the subject (the Italian martial artist and lawyer in the trailer): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qvzWKthxtlM ;

Another Italian article: https://www.true-news.it/facts/giacomo-carolina-tommaso-chi-sono-figli-marcella-bella-carriera-vita-privata ;

There may be also qualification as WP:POLITICIAN as subject represents directly the Prime Minister Gaston Browne of Antigua and Barbuda as Special Economic Envoy (the same exact role from the same Country is covered also by actor Robert De Niro, https://www.theguardian.com/film/2014/nov/29/robert-de-niro-economic-envoy-antigua-barbuda .

There is a clear constant pattern of coverage in international sources and from multiple reasons of different kind.

Also I simply observe that several of the editors participating in this AfD discussion, including the proposer, seem to be very actively involved with each other in the broader context of arguing and engaging in what appear to be editing wars, which somehow casts a doubt on their WP:NPOV . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.220.129.231 (talk) 06:56, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IP user, you are casting aspersions if you are suggesting the proposer and other editors are colluding on some sort of agenda here. If you are trying to insinuate something, do provide evidence. Nayyn (talk) 10:45, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For precision and intellectual honesty, I never accused you or anyone else of "colluding on some sort of agenda", these are words you are putting yourself in there. And "casting aspersions" involves direct accusations which are "repeated or particularly severe", which, again, it is objectively not the case. 5.148.85.22 (talk) 15:19, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As you have declared a COI in this case, it is quite serious to suggest that uninvolved persons are purportedly engaging in editing wars over this subject. This is not true. Nayyn (talk) 21:13, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure which IP user am I talking to here, 5.148.85.22 or 205.220.129.231? Or if you're continuing the same conversation across two IPs.... Nayyn (talk) 16:04, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi please stop and try to make an argument. I added a number of quality sources and you ignored them. What for clarification I meant is that there seems to be an ongoing drama between you @Kellycrak88 @Mediascriptor @Arcaist which apparently resulted in ANI heated discussions, blocking of an entire section of the Baronage of Scotland, and so on. The IP changes depending where you are, sorry. Also I recently noticed this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mediascriptor ; as an external onlooker I simply noted that there seems to be again and again the same persons, including yourself, over the same topics, and it does not look balanced and respecting WP:NPOV - this is not casting aspersions at all, I am merely stating facts that anyone tracking all the above users interconnected involvements can notice. I will no longer reply on this specific topic, as I believe I explained it to you clearly. However, I do ask you to reassess the page you proposed for deletion based also on the newly shared RS, and in conjunction with everything else. You could easily edit to improve the page further. 119.56.98.99 (talk) 06:28, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Only replying because you pinged me. Your COI should make you think twice before accusing others of lacking WP:NPOV. The "ongoing drama" (an expression which borders on WP:PA) is a good-faith effort to deal with non-notable individuals connected to bought Scottish titles; it's not surprising you see the same editors appear in multiple places.

Let's look at the sources:

Thoi Bao Ngan Hang: a report on a workshop in Vietnam at which he was one of eight speakers.
Dai Bieu Nhan Dan: the same workshop, he's marginally quoted in one paragraph.
VNBA: same workshop.
VIR articles: this is not "coverage", they are simply promotional articles written by him.
YouTube: I'm not even going to comment on the notability implications of 4 seconds of him swinging a katana and making meatballs in a trailer with 200 views for a "primetime show".
True-News.it: The fact that family members are notable doesn't make him notable.
I don't think I have to explain why the existence of Robert De Niro doesn't make Merello notable? I can't even find a press release about his envoy status besides an article in Antigua News, which is owned by his buddy Dario Item.

None of this fulfills WP:SIGCOV in any meaningful way. — Arcaist ^(contr ^—talk) 12:00, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 17:58, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability is not inherited. The sources do not discuss him in depth. Angryapathy (talk) 18:15, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]