Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law#Articles for the Wikipedia 1.0 project

	This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Law This page is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 27

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

I'm not sure if this list works. It's been unsourced for 15 years. Should we delete it? Can you add reliable sources? Discuss. Bearian (talk) 22:51, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seems somewhat redundant for purely navigational purposes as categories and the template {{Asia topic|Law of}} cover this. Delete seems an option in its current iteration, but there is certainly a wide body of literature on law in Asia generally speaking. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 23:19, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What would a source even look like for this list? A citation to a geographical reference verifying that each country is in Asia? In its current form, this seems about as self-substantiating as it is possible for a list to be. That said, I don't think anything of encyclopedic value would be lost by deleting it.

A clearer idea of the originally intended scope of this list/article can be seen by looking at the last version before uncited statements were purged. I don't think that text is salvageable, but it would certainly be possible to write a similar sort of overview based on reliable scholarly sources. Of course that would remain equally possible even if this list was deleted. -- Visviva (talk) 04:23, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Following Rinkoff v Baby Cow Productions, we really should have an article about format rights, which, depending on who you listen to, are either a valuable and important form of intellectual property around which a whole industry is based, or a nonsensical idea that doesn't actually exist in law. I've created a sub-stub draft article at Draft:Format rights. — The Anome (talk) 13:03, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Bearian (talk) 20:49, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is now possible for any citation template to automatically format dates. Is this desirable in any of the law citation templates?

The most popular citation templates all automatically format the dates if {{use dmy dates}} or {{use mdy dates}} are present in the article. These citation style 1 (CS1) and 2 (CS2) templates are implemented by Module:Citation/CS1. Auto-formatted dates are also possible in any template via the recently written Module:Auto date formatter. It will either format the date, or if it cannot parse the date, it will output it as written. The module does not have the broad range of error detection, tracking, and warning that CS1 templates offer. Earlier this month, {{cite patent}} was updated to use this module.

Would auto-formatting dates be desirable for any templates in Category:Law citation templates? Some match external standards and style guides where a date format is specified. For example, the Bluebook citations output mdy dates. Others, like {{UN document}}, look like CS1 formatting rather than an external style.

Rather than try to guess where it would be desirable to implement, I thought it would make the most sense to ask here. Also, I can assist or clarify anything in the module's documentation if there's a consensus to add auto-formatted dates to any of the legal citation templates.

Regards, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 04:35, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Consistency with article date style is in our guidelines and should be followed. voorts (talk/contributions) 13:53, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but I mention it here because some of these are clearly based on an external style and therefore will be using that style's date formatting. I've pushed the changes live at Template:UN document. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 04:31, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Article 9 of the Constitution of Singapore has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 20:33, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Please note that Internet research, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of the Articles for improvement. The article is scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:05, 28 April 2025 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI team[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:For_Women_Scotland_Ltd_v_The_Scottish_Ministers There is currently a discussion on the Talk page for this case, under the heading Rejected interventions, which may be of interest to this project. Sweet6970 (talk) 21:12, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Preterintention is mostly a steaming pile of dense incomprehensibility, with little puddles of clarity here and there, most likely due to the fact that the author's English level is probably 1 or 2 and he probably indulges in occasional AI translation. I left him this message about it, but it's hard to know where to begin: it's way too late to draftify, so what is to be done? The one thing he gets right is sourcing, which he has been assiduous about (> 100 refs). Any ideas how to improve it? Mathglot (talk) 08:09, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is the third post about this article here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law/Archive 26#Preterintention and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law/Archive 26#Preterintention 2. I don't know why this particular legal concept is attracting AI junk and poor writing. It can be redraftified via afd. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:22, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the links. I had heard of the topic, first via French criminal law, as it happens, where it is known as dol dépassé, but it seems to be a concept barely covered in English, although there is some Italian, Portuguese, German, and Spanish coverage of it. Unclear if enough to support an article here; perhaps a section or mention in another one. Mathglot (talk) 08:11, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see that it's being worked on. I'd rather wait for a few days before merging it. Bearian (talk) 19:11, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that it's being worked on is part of the issue, as Mathglot noted. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:21, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I think this needs to be TNT'd or stubified. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:25, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Delete it. Bearian (talk) 23:57, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty sure it won't be outright deleted. If kept at that title, it will very likely be TNT'd and become a WP:Permastub. A better outcome imho, would be write up a paragraph or two at Mens rea or Culpability about it, and then redirect the page to it. Mathglot (talk) 06:57, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This has been proposed for deletion. Bearian (talk) 19:09, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article Multiplicity of suits has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unreferenced and unimproved for over 15 years. This term is very rarely used in the law.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bearian (talk) 00:22, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It was redirected per BLAR. Bearian (talk) 23:58, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Voorts! Bearian (talk) 17:44, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I created a draft for Musk v. Altman. It may be of interest to members of this project. Thriley (talk) 18:17, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is notable. This is all routine coverage. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:32, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The suit is the subject of over one year of detailed reporting in global news media. There is definitely room for expansion. Thriley (talk) 19:19, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

From what I've seen, they're all primary sources / tick-tock reporting. Is there any in depth analysis of the case other than "this was filed on this day and then the judge ruled X"? voorts (talk/contributions) 20:48, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Prodded by Worldbruce, seconded and assessed as a stub by me. Please review. Bearian (talk) 23:56, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thirded. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:10, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article needs more work:

1. updates to address the changes by Trump and Musk in 2025,
2. images, including office buildings and/or administrators, and
3. additional secondary sources.

Please help out! Bearian (talk) 16:19, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've completed the entire 10+ year backlog of requests for assessment. Now all that are left are my 13 requests. Can somebody please help me? Bearian (talk) 21:01, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I saw on the front page here at Wikipedia:WikiProject Law that "Terry stop needs to be fixed...multiple warnings," but other than updates needed, I don't see a single problem with this. Am I missing something? Bearian (talk) 20:48, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Probably an old message. Who knows when the front page of the WikiProject was last substantively updated. (Obviously the page history, but I'm too lazy to look and I'd wager it was long ago.) voorts (talk/contributions) 21:14, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll check it out. Bearian (talk) 20:17, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can't figure out how to edit it from my iPhone. Can you please help, Voorts? Bearian (talk) 20:48, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This stub has been unsourced for 15 years. Can anyone source it? Bearian (talk) 20:17, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Let's keep on an eye on this. It's gotten an explosion of page views, obviously because it's in the news. Thanks for your help. Bearian (talk) 00:37, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article Possession proceedings has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Tagged as Unreferenced and unimproved for over 15 years. Tagged as NN for 5 years. No other language has an article from which to translate. This actually is a dictionary definition, but could be a dab page. Unless some editor wants to rescue it, it's probably better to delete or redirect somewhere.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bearian (talk) 00:09, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I assessed this as a Start-Class article, and as predicted by User:Nettrom/sandbox/WikiProject Law stub predictions; I also requested images. There's no reason for why this important case has such a shabby article. With a bit of work, this could be a B-Class article. Please help out. Bearian (talk) 00:42, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:W.M.M. v. Trump#Requested move 17 May 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:21, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This law-stub is up for deletion at WP:AfD. Bearian (talk) 04:32, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article Judicature Act (Nova Scotia) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Notability not established with substantive sources for generic law

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bearian (talk) 20:29, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This has been proposed as deletion. Bearian (talk) 20:35, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Voorts! Bearian (talk) 17:44, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Non-constituency Member of Parliament has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 15:54, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can somebody please add reliable sources to this stub? Bearian (talk) 07:02, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello all. If anyone at this project would be able to help with templates / mechanics / categorization, as well as independent review, on the page I've published on National TPS Alliance v. Noem et al. it would be appreciated. I've had trouble accessing the defendants filings to the court as well as broader context of their strictly legal argumentation (paywall issues). My thanks in advance to anyone who would be able to assist in finding information on their arguments / briefs, as they are currently lacking, and information has largely been pulled from the court ruling and news publications. Thanks again, and all my best - CSGinger14 (talk) 05:29, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Bearian (talk) 01:51, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I added some categories. Make sure they make sense. Bearian (talk) 02:00, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This important article needs more reliable sources. Thanks in advance for helping. Bearian (talk) 12:00, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can somebody help add content to the current version, with reliable sources? Bearian (talk) 01:51, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone update this article, please? Bearian (talk) 14:20, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearian, I mean what needs updating? It allows for the president to make tariff some increases? It's a minor law like the AEA; merely because it's been in the news recently doesn't really change that. Pleasant editing, Irruptive Creditor (talk) 01:20, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok Bearian (talk) 01:23, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article IWC meeting in 2006 has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Minutes of a three-day meeting. No secondary sources

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bearian (talk) 01:42, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Brendan Carr (lawyer)#Requested move 23 May 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 09:48, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Up for deletion, for various reasons. Bearian (talk) 06:34, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please update as tagged. Bearian (talk) 21:41, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This stub has been an unsourced dictionary definition for decades, darn it! Please add reliable sources. You too could earn points from Wikipedia:WikiProject Unreferenced articles/Backlog drives/June 2025. Bearian (talk) 01:43, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blanked and redirected. I don't think it makes sense to have a separate article from affidavit. Feel free to revert if you disagree. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:20, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Voorts. Bearian (talk) 19:13, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can somebody please add reliable sources to this stub, which has been unsourced for 15 years. You may earn points at Wikipedia:WikiProject Unreferenced articles/Backlog drives/June 2025. Bearian (talk) 19:12, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article Independence constitution has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Tagged as Unreferenced and unimproved for 15 and 1/2 years. Tagged for Notability concerns for 3 months. Wikipedia is not a soap box. Wikipedia doesn't publish original content.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bearian (talk) 01:41, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This has been tagged as unsourced for 15 and 1/2 years, and was proposed to merge for almost 17 years. We already have a banner and a category. Why is this needed? Bearian (talk) 23:17, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like a navigational list. Why does it need references? voorts (talk/contributions) 00:29, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Bearian (talk) 17:45, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This has been unsourced for 15 years. Does anyone want to take on this project and add reliable sources? Bearian (talk) 23:29, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done voorts (talk/contributions) 01:48, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Voorts! Bearian (talk) 17:45, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Manufacturing clause has been tagged as unsourced for 15 and 1/2 years. It's an historical artifact. It's time to merge, which I'll do without objection next week, to History of copyright law of the United States. Bearian (talk) 17:38, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following stubs about New Hampshire law have been tagged as unreferenced for over 15 years:

1. NH RSA Title III
2. NH RSA Title LXIII
3. NH RSA Title V
4. NH RSA Title XXX.

I've cross-listed this with the WP NH. Could someone please add reliable sources to them, or possibly merge them? Bearian (talk) 03:09, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article Prevention of disasters principle has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Tagged as Unreferenced and unimproved for 15 and 1/2 years. No other language has a reliably sourced article from which to translate. No reliable secondary sources online Google. Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bearian (talk) 15:05, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I few weeks ago, I proposed merger if this into Spendthrift trust. What do folks think? Bearian (talk) 22:26, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Guantanamo military commission#Requested move 20 June 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 12:21, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Perry v. Cyphers is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Perry v. Cyphers until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

voorts (talk/contributions) 21:09, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bali Nine has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 12:34, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am hoping WikiProject Weather can collaborate with WikiProject Law, to work to create Draft:Court cases related to tornadoes in the United States! If anyone is interested, please feel free to assist in the creation of the article and/or message me on my talk page! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 14:48, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The claim in the first sentence seems highly incorrect. Force majeure is a principal of contract law, not constitutional law. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:15, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the sources are dictionaries and primary sources. As with MEDRS, I think we do a disservice to our readers when we use newspapers and other non-legal sources to provide information about the law. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:17, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Voorts: Then can you help correct the first sentence? It was a literal copy/paste from the Act of God article, including that article's sources. That is why I asked for assistance here. I am not familiar that much with legalese, but I am familiar with weather history, so I know which tornadoes led to lawsuits...I just don't know what the legal-aspect of the lawsuits was. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 19:20, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a topic I'm particularly interested in. I'm just letting you know that I think we should be careful when writing about legal topics on wiki, just like with medical topics. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:22, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am wondering if this meets WP:NLIST. BD2412 T 20:17, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@BD2412: – It does. Several of the lawsuits are fairly notable, for example, a lawsuit originating from the 2021 Western Kentucky tornado received major media attention: AP News, ABC News, NBC News. Edwardsville Amazon warehouse collapse is an article that exists from the aftermath of a different tornado in 2021, and it led to a U.S. House Oversight Committee investigation, followed by six lawsuits. So yeah, it almost certainly meets NLIst criteria. There just aren't that many lawsuits in general that relate to tornadoes, but when there is one, it typically gets some level of media attention. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 20:53, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Having primary source coverage and the fact of lawsuits existing doesn't establish notability for a legal case. Lots of newspapers run an article when someone files a lawsuit; that doesn't make every lawsuit notable. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:45, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@WeatherWriter: I am not questioning the notability of the individual lawsuits, but whether there exists evidence of "tornado lawsuits" being discussed as a group or set in sources outside of Wikipedia, which is what NLIST requires. BD2412 T 22:47, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, per WP:NLIST directly, "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources...The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been" Here is three groups of tornado-related lawsuits discussed as a group: "There are currently a number of Western Kentucky tornado lawsuits underway, for various reasons...", Two lawsuits, one wrongful death and the other emotional distress, have been filed...", "Apollo Theatre in Belvidere now faces six lawsuits following March tornado". That is three sources not just discussing one lawsuit, but multiple lawsuits. NLIST notes that is "one accepted reason", not the "only accepted reason", so if there are further NLIST issues, that could be addressed at a larger community discussion, if someone wished to AFD the list once it is completed. But, that is good enough for me in terms of passing NLIST...since NLIST also directly states, "there is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as "Lists of X of Y") or what other criteria may justify the notability of stand-alone lists... Since there is no dispute the lawsuits are notable, a list of notable lawsuits related to tornadoes would be complex and decent cross-categorization (science & law), to which there is no present consensus. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 00:02, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I dispute that the lawsuits are notable. See my comment above. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:18, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Alberta Sovereignty Within a United Canada Act#Requested move 26 June 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. CNC (talk) 12:40, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If a UK Public General Act does not have an explicit commencement date, and also does not provide for a commencement date to be subsequently set (for example, by Statutory Instrument), does the Act automatically come into force on the day upon which it receives Royal Assent? Please see Talk:Railways Act 1921#Commencement and reply there. Thank you. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:06, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Legal history of cannabis in the United States has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 18:40, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article Proposed National Unification Promotion Law has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Tagged as needing more footnotes for more than 10 years. Proposed bills like this are rarely notable and violate WP:CRYSTAL. Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bearian (talk) 21:37, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Ohidul Islam and others v. The Government of Bangladesh and others#Requested move 6 July 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 00:11, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article Loss on sale of residential property has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Tagged as Unreferenced, Notability, and Globalize for more than 13 years. Appears to give legal advice. I'm not sure if it's even correct after passage of the OBBB. WP:TNT.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bearian (talk) 09:38, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone please add reliable sources to this article, which has been unsourced for 15 years. Bearian (talk) 23:13, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone with knowledge of Australian law please add more information and sources? Bearian (talk) 00:55, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms#Requested move 13 July 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. – MrAussieGuy (Talk) 05:47, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]