Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law

The article White Corolla case has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Tagged as Unreferenced, Not Notable, and for an Update – all for almost 8 years. No other language has an article from which to translate. We are Not the Daily News. I feel badly for the crime victims, but this is not something we do.

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) 17:53, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

One reference has been added, FYI. Bearian (talk) 17:08, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

 Done Bearian (talk) 19:14, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

This article on Canadian criminal law needs copy editing and reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 02:28, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

 Done by Lovelyfurball. Bearian (talk) 19:16, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

R v Thomas 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) 00:41, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

 Done I would have raised it to a B-Class, but the consensus appears to be a C-Class. Bearian (talk) 19:53, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi all. I'm preparing to resubmit Draft:Legora about the Swedish legal AI startup. I've done my best to address previous reviewer concerns, but would appreciate any feedback on notability, source quality, structure or anything else! Thanks very much for any guidance or suggestions. Neilyoung77 (talk) 15:43, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

All of the sources appear to be primary news reports, which is not enough to establish notability of a company. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:01, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look @Voorts. Alongside sources covering funding news etc, I have updated the draft with independent analysis - eg features by Business Insider and the FT. Neilyoung77 (talk) 11:10, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

"Submission declined on 5 February 2026 by Timtrent". Bearian (talk) 19:54, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

@Bearian The creating editor is a self declared WP:PAID editor. I stand by the review and the comment I left. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 22:52, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm just the messenger! Bearian (talk) 22:53, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Apologies. Of course you were. I honestly do not see what to expand on. Maybe they should try WP:AFCHD where they will get reviewer comments. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 00:08, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks @Timtrent. I did indeed do that -- you can see the discussion here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2025_December_10#c-DoubleGrazing-20251210143800-Neilyoung77-20251210141900. I attempted to follow this guidance when resubmitting. Do you think better for the page to be deleted now - and perhaps recreated from scratch in due course? I do maintain that it is noteworthy - Legora is one of two major companies in the emerging legal tech space, the other being Harvey (software) - but I feel that my involvement is counterproductive. If there is consensus that the subject has potential of notability, I'd be happy to request deletion and step aside. Then an unaffiliated editor could assess it on its merits when/if more notable coverage emerges. I appreciate the feedback and I don't want to force something that isn't working.Neilyoung77 (talk) 11:38, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

@Neilyoung77 I would let it lie fallow until substantially improved references are available. this small niche has become contentious in the past few weeks on the Harvey and it's main investor's (Weinberg?) side with some editors or a sock farm behaving unusually assertively. You would not wish to be anywhere near the fallout. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 13:38, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, will do! Neilyoung77 (talk) 15:49, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Timtrent I was expecting to wait quite a bit longer but it's a fast-moving space! This just-published article is quite significant as it mentions Legora as having 'one of the most extraordinary growth trajectories in European startup history'.

https://europeanbusinessmagazine.com/business/675-million-to-6-billion-how-legora-became-europes-fastest-growing-company/

Also, it speaks to the explosive growth of legal AI more generally - ie, no longer a small niche – notable because (the article notes) law is traditionally among the slowest industries to embrace new tech. I'm not planning to resubmit but wanted to flag - is this closer to what you'd consider in-depth secondary coverage? Worth nothing it does mention Harvey too. Neilyoung77 (talk) 14:10, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

I can't see anything 'significant' in a a hype-filled article on some obscure website presenting itself (without the slightest evidence) as "the leading subscription-based print and online publication, published quarterly to c-suite executives throughout Europe reaching the very lead decision makers across respected industries". AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:22, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for checking it out anyway, Andy. Noted. This article in the FT, also published today, cites the same LinkedIn post from the Legora CEO and mentions Harvey and Legora as the two leading legal AI companies.

https://www.ft.com/content/92dfd571-8d34-42f1-8be8-dce126998e37?accessToken=zwAGSvLgwGRwkdOS39VxjTRC8dOL6NzhJpmONw.MEUCIQDCrhU3LBU-E3J4IKN73PfGmH3RGzWQnQM7dM8-f7nrLwIgcHp5dw6CclIIPBZDiyHzDHwmKC8kPbUqz_EGwBGbI2w&sharetype=gift&token=c9565862-4b61-4dc4-b200-cf7441eb1e07

In any case will leave for now. Neilyoung77 (talk) 15:05, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

@Neilyoung77 Wikipedia does not have the slightest interest in what the Legora CEO says. The FT is behind a paywall and I cannot see it, but quoting someone's LinkedIn post seems to me to be the almost the laziest journalism, the laziest being using press releases verbatim.

I think this horse has died. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 17:56, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Respectfully, I only mentioned the LinkedIn post quoted by the FT (the article isn't paywalled - updated link below) because Andy had dismissed the previous article, which also quoted the post, as 'hype-filled'. I don't think it is unacceptable or unreasonable to question therefore whether it is in fact mere hype, or whether something more significant is taking place here. That is the opposite of laziness. I do take your point about the equine health of this subject. As noted, I did not intend to resubmit the AfC.

Are Anthropic’s new AI work tools game-changing for professionals? - https://www.ft.com/content/92dfd571-8d34-42f1-8be8-dce126998e37

Neilyoung77 (talk) 19:21, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is notable. Discuss. Bearian (talk) 03:33, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

I've gone through this case and its subsequent treatment, it certainly seems to be of legal interest in the area of charitable trusts, but I might share the sentiment that it just isn't notable enough for Wikipedia. notadev (talk) 23:48, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. Bearian (talk) 00:16, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

NotADev do you want to send this to WP:AfD? Bearian (talk) 00:19, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

To be quite honest I'm not too certain about notability of case law, so I'm not sure I'd actually know what to say, but if you'd rather I did it then I can have a go yes. notadev (talk) 00:27, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

@Bearian If it is of interest to you, I have started that discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Incorporated Council of Law Reporting for England and Wales v A-G. notadev (talk) 00:47, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

•  Done, soft delete.

Bearian (talk) 17:59, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

The article Primary physical custody has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Tagged as Unreferenced for 2 years. I requested help at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law, but nobody answered. WP:TNT.

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, articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion based on established criteria.

If the proposed deletion has already been carried out, you may request undeletion of the article at any time. Bearian (talk) 04:22, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

 Done. Bearian (talk) 17:58, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

For WikiProjects that participate in rating articles, the banners for talk pages usually say something like:

• "This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale."

There is a proposal to change the default wording on the banners to say "priority" instead of "importance". This could affect the template for your group. Please join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council#Proposal to update wording on WikiProject banners. Stefen 𝕋ower ^{Huddle • Handiwerk} 19:45, 6 December 2025 (UTC) (on behalf of the WikiProject Council)

Consensus was against the idea. Bearian (talk) 11:45, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

The article Vasiliy Bukanov has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unsourced for 7 years. Tagged as Unreferenced for 6 years. No other language has a reliably sourced article from which to translate. Creator has been blocked indef.

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, articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion based on established criteria.

If the proposed deletion has already been carried out, you may request undeletion of the article at any time. Bearian (talk) 15:29, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

 Done. Bearian (talk) 17:58, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Constitutional Convention (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) 16:22, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

 Done: delisted as a GA, but assessed as a B-Class Article. Bearian (talk) 19:58, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

An editor has requested that Talk:Freedom of political communication be moved to Implied freedom of political communication, which may be of interest to this WikiProject. You are invited to participate in the move discussion. Qwerty123M (talk) 02:19, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

 Done. Bearian (talk) 19:59, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Matthew Hale (jurist) 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) 20:34, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

 Done: kept as a GA. Bearian (talk) 20:00, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases#Requested move 17 December 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 17:36, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Result was: "The result of the move request was: not moved. withdrawn theleekycauldron". Bearian (talk) 20:02, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Aboriginal title in the Taney Court 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) 05:09, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

The result was a de-listing as a GA and demotion to a B-Class Article. Bearian (talk) 20:03, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Bill of Middlesex 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) 05:10, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

The result was a de-listing as a GA and demotion to a B-Class Article. Bearian (talk) 20:05, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

If you have any wisdom on this, please join Talk:Simon_Ekpa#"Lainvoimainen". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:10, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Regulation (EU) 2023/988#Requested move 18 December 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 02:32, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

An editor has requested that Online Safety Amendment be moved to Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Act 2024, which may be of interest to this WikiProject. You are invited to participate in the move discussion. Qwerty123M (talk) 00:04, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

An editor has requested that Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 be moved to Administrative Decisions Act 1977, which may be of interest to this WikiProject. You are invited to participate in the move discussion. Qwerty123M (talk) 02:45, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

An editor has requested that Family Law Legislation Amendment (Family Violence and Other Measures) Act 2011 be moved to Family Law Amendment, which may be of interest to this WikiProject. You are invited to participate in the move discussion. Qwerty123M (talk) 04:15, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Meeker Massacre#Requested move 20 December 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 10:19, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Can somebody with knowledge of legal names of cases in the US, help name this article correctly: United States v. Carvajal-Barrios. See talk page. ReyHahn (talk) 18:37, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Trial or Prosecution of Nicolas Maduro is the standard way we title these articles. United States v. X is generally reserved for notable opinions, not articles about prosecutions and trials. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:41, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Ok. But that can be decided later on the talk page, if we needed an official case name which one should it be?--ReyHahn (talk) 18:45, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Note that it is just not Maduro that is being judged here, so a more complex name has to be discussed.--ReyHahn (talk) 18:48, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

@Voorts, the case started off as United States v. Carvajal-Barrios, 1:11-cr-00205. Carvajal was the only defendant at that point. There was a first superseding indictment, again only naming Carvajal. Then there was a second superseding indictment naming Maduro and Carvajal and four other defendants, with Maduro listed first. Carvajal then pleaded guilty. After that, there was a third superseding indictment, naming Maduro and five other defendants, four of whom are newly listed, and dropping some of the defendants listed in the second superseding indictment. So the question about the name is whether the case name remains United States v. Carvajal-Barrios, since all of these are part of case 1:11-cr-00205, or if the case name has changed since Maduro is now listed first and Carvajal is no longer a defendant. We need to know how to name the case regardless of how the article is titled.

As for the article title, Prosecution of Nicolas Maduro (or Prosecution of Nicolas Maduro and Cilia Flores) makes sense, though it may turn out to be a noteworthy case, as there are questions about whether Maduro can be prosecuted (because he is the head of state of Venezuela and therefore immune from prosecution, though the US is arguing that he's only the de facto head of state) and whether the arrest was legal (because it was contrary to the UN Charter, which is a treaty that the US ratified). FactOrOpinion (talk) 20:46, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

(You don't need to ping me.) The official case name will change when it's changed. There's no rush to change the article when the court hasn't even changed the caption yet (though it probably will at some point). As for the immunity and legality of arrest, those issues are not as complicated as the media is making them out to be. These are issues that have been litigated in the past and the precedent is clear that the executive, not the courts, determine who the leader of a foreign nation is (see e.g., Noriega) and that the legality of an extraterritorial arrest doesn't affect the court's jurisdiction (see, e.g., the El Mayo case). I doubt there will be a significant change in law. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:52, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. An ignorant question: the case name in a criminal case is determined solely by the list of defendants? FactOrOpinion (talk) 21:00, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

I am not entirely sure where this question should be raised. Currently, there is a dispute regarding the age of consent in Indonesia, mainly due to the new Penal Code that came into force in 2026. One party insists it is still 15, while other parties argue that it is 18. I would appreciate it if members of WikiProject Law could take a look at this issue and share their views on the talk page. Ckfasdf (talk) 15:05, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

Gun show loophole 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) 20:45, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

 Done: delisted. "Re-assess as a C-Class Article of Mid-importance based upon the criteria." Bearian (talk) 20:10, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

I deprodded this, but it's likely to end up at AfD. Bearian (talk) 05:46, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Kudos to Cloventt for rescuing this law stub! Bearian (talk) 00:22, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

The article Institute for Environmental and Technology Law has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Tagged as Unreferenced for 15 years. No other language has a reliably sourced article from which to translate. Tried to find sources online, but only found passing mentions.

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, articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion based on established criteria.

If the proposed deletion has already been carried out, you may request undeletion of the article at any time. Bearian (talk) 05:11, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

The result: deprodded, updated, and sourced by Markussep. Bearian (talk) 20:13, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Talk:Palestinian genocide accusation#Requested move 5 January 2026. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 13:52, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

The IP project has been marked inactive since July 2024 and is believed to have never been active, yet it still has talk page banners. Any thoughts on making it a task force or child project under the Law WikiProject? Qzekrom (she/her • talk) 21:22, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

I've created a stub article for the UK Act of Parliament the Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Act 2025.

It's really inadequate, but it's at least a start, and looks highly relevant because the government seem to have started to enforce it, generating new stories. Could someone with the relevant knowledge and skills help expand it, please? — The Anome (talk) 17:00, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

 Done. Assessed as a Start-Class Article of Mid-importance. Bearian (talk) 20:16, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

== Peer review: Human Intervention Motivation Study ==

Requesting feedback on [[Human Intervention Motivation Study]], the FAA program for aviation professionals with substance use disorders. The article includes eight legal cases: employment discrimination (''Petitt v. Delta'', ''Tallon v. United''), EEOC enforcement (''EEOC v. United Airlines''), administrative law (''Erwin v. FAA'' in the D.C. Circuit), and ongoing litigation. A [[Wikipedia:Peer review/Human Intervention Motivation Study/archive1|peer review]] is open. Feedback from WikiProject Law editors on the legal sections would be appreciated. LumenStoneEditor (talk) 20:09, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

I'm just the messenger. Bearian (talk) 17:14, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Result: merged with Weiquan movement. Bearian (talk) 20:17, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

We could use a few more eyes on this page, because Justice Pearlman has issued a controversial order that would force redistricting. (Disclosure: I've known him for many years.) Bearian (talk) 03:18, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Can some legal eagles please add case law from your jurisdiction about Commingling? Bearian (talk) 02:57, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi, I would like to get some feedback and census to protect form ANI reports, on how the legal sections in the Pornography laws by region article and its related sub‑articles could be improved. The existing global and the continent articles contain only very limited information, such as whether pornography is legal, what the minimum age is, or what penalties apply. In some cases, the section merely lists the name of the relevant law without any further explanation. This results in an inconsistent and often redundant overall picture that is neither particularly helpful for readers nor an accurate reflection of the actual legal framework.

Since most continent articles only provide a few basic data points, a tabular format might present the information more clearly. Such a table could include the country, the minimum age, possible penalties, references, and notes on enforcement. The question of general legality would not need to be noted, as it is already summarized in the map at the beginning of the article. However, a table cannot capture important legal nuances, such as whom a law applies to—consumers, producers, or distributors—or whether it covers physical media, online content, or both. It also cannot reflect how courts interpret the law in practice. A good example is the Pornography Act (Austria), article 1 of the Austrian law, one might assume that porn is illegal. But its not the supreme curt decimilised it. The laws could maybe just be links, like within the Pornography Act (Austria) article.

Another issue is that many of the continent sub‑articles contain very little unique information, i focus here only on article who do not have an state article as the information can be intrgerated into that article. In Pornography in Oceania, the only unique information, is that in New Zealand, some unique enforcements happen in some states, aswell as some unique legalitys some some content. In Pornography in the Americas, it is mostly the same, execpt of Chile, which has some information about the history, which is associated with legality. The Colombia section, as some information about the industry, but is to unclear. The same applies to Pornography in Europe, where only Malta offers some historical context, and to Pornography in Africa, where Nigeria includes a few remarks about users and a film. In Pornography in Asia, there is some unique information about South Korea, about the enforcement and in Singapore about an cinema there is no other unique information. Some of the articles note information about underage porn but that can be intigrated into the Legality of child pornography article.

Given this, i would like to have feedback form other editors, what the best way is, making an table out of it, deleing all the articles, or other ideas. My first step would be to make such an table out of it, but that table could then also just be intigrated into the main article, by setting it to folded as the default. My question is whether there is sufficient consensus for such a restructuring.

More information State, Punishment ...

Pornography laws by region

State	Punishment	Minimum Age	Enforcement	Law Link
Malawi	K500,000 and imprisonment for two years	None	ISP Blocks
Germany		18
Austria		16

Close

The Other Karma (talk) 09:47, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Please add reliable sources. Will cross post. Bearian (talk) 23:22, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Please Note that if you register for the Unref backlog drive, you can earn a Barnstar! Bearian (talk) 11:49, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

I have started a discussion on use of judicial memoranda (court opinions?) that refer to a case X as a source for notability of case X. You are invited to participate at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § Use of judicial memoranda for notability in a case article. —🌊PacificDepths (talk) 22:04, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Moved to Wikipedia talk:Notability § Use of judicial memoranda for notability in a case article. —🌊PacificDepths (talk) 23:21, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Can somebody please move this to main space or send it to WP:AfD? Bearian (talk) 12:01, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

@Bearian: Why would we do either? It is an incomplete draft in process for a clearly notable subject (a state supreme court justice). If it concerns you, please finish the draft so that it can reasonably be moved to mainspace. Sources should be abundant. BD2412 T 15:35, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Ok, I will do so this weekend. Bearian (talk) 17:23, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your work on this. Bearian (talk) 20:01, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

I'm going through and assessing articles, and noticed this one that could use some TLC. Is anyone interested in improving this? Bearian (talk) 04:21, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Correspondence with the Pretender Act 1697 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/Correspondence with the Pretender Act 1697 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.

Bearian (talk) 03:04, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Kyle Fraser 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/Kyle Fraser 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.

George Ho (talk) 07:49, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Result was Keep. Bearian (talk) 02:12, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Deaths, detentions and deportations of American citizens in the second Trump administration#Requested move 4 February 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Abesca (talk) 18:30, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Imprisonment of Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva#Requested move 1 February 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Abesca (talk) 18:36, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Please add additional sources. Bearian (talk) 09:26, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

This BLP stub is in desperate need of attention. Please add reliable sources. I'm friends of friends with her and am concerned about being accused of a COI. Bearian (talk) 19:13, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks Waacstats, for stub sorting! Bearian (talk) 11:51, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

This BLP of a law professor been tagged for notability concerns for almost 15 years. Is he notable or not? Discuss. Bearian (talk) 01:59, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

•  Done: Has at least the minimum three sources necessary for a prima facie case of notability. Bearian (talk) 11:53, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Prominent individuals mentioned in the Epstein files#Requested move 5 February 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 03:19, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

The article John Joseph Collins has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Tagged for notability concerns for 14 years. No other language has a reliably sourced article from which to translate. Poorly sourced WP:BLP. In ordinary times, not a big problem, but nowadays, this is a legal risk.

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, articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion based on established criteria.

If the proposed deletion has already been carried out, you may request undeletion of the article at any time. Bearian (talk) 02:26, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

•  Done. Bearian (talk) 11:54, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm just the messenger! Bearian (talk) 22:36, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

•  Done; redirected to List of circulars. Bearian (talk) 11:55, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

The article Stephen Finfer has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Tagged for Notability concerns for 14 years. No other language has a reliably sourced article from which to translate. Run of the mill producer and attorney. Poorly sourced WP:BLP.

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, articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion based on established criteria.

If the proposed deletion has already been carried out, you may request undeletion of the article at any time. Bearian (talk) 02:12, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

This was subsequently re-written. Bearian (talk) 11:56, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Notable or not? Discuss. Bearian (talk) 21:37, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Borderline. I could find a crumb of significant coverage in The Wishaw Press here. Otherwise, all of the coverage that is available on Newspapers.com and Google Books describes her actions as sheriff and mentions her only in relation to said actions. The searches I made to find information about her supposed dinghy championship win (according to The Herald) yielded nothing. Rand Freeman (talk to me) 22:14, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

•  Done. : Has at least the minimum three sources necessary for a prima facie case of notability. Bearian (talk) 11:57, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

The article Delbert Gee has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This article is an autobiography

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, articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion based on established criteria.

If the proposed deletion has already been carried out, you may request undeletion of the article at any time. Bearian (talk) 21:13, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

•  Done - substantial re-work by Jiltedsquirrel. Bearian (talk) 12:00, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

I was looking at the page at Memorial (law), and it's obviously a stub. Memorandum, however, is a lot better. If the first article says the two can be used synonymously, would it not make sense to just merge the two? Not too sure about any major differences between the two terms, so if there are any, I'd be happy to learn. Thanks. Nautilusblue8 (talk) 20:38, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

There's nothing to merge because Memorial is just dictionary definitions. I'd BLAR to Memorandum. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:43, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

I was going to suggest a redirect, but I thought if there were any actual differences, it'd be confusing. Thanks for the clarfication! Nautilusblue8 (talk) 20:53, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

National without household registration 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) 03:38, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

If this had just 2 or 3 more citations, it would easily be a B-Class Article, and possibly a GA. Can somebody help? Bearian (talk) 17:57, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm proposing to merge this stub into Jury trial. Please discuss Talk:Jury trial#Specific finding, not here. Thank you for your time. Bearian (talk) 21:32, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

•  Done. Bearian (talk) 13:28, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

This has been proposed for deletion. If you want to rescue it, please do so within a week. Bearian (talk) 04:19, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

•  Done. Bearian (talk) 13:28, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

The article Geraets-Smits v Stichting Ziekenfonds has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Tagged as Unreferenced for 12 years, and for other issues. No other language has a reliably sourced article from which to translate. The only link is to the case decision itself.

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, articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion based on established criteria.

If the proposed deletion has already been carried out, you may request undeletion of the article at any time. Bearian (talk) 19:19, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

• Oblivy is working on it. Bearian (talk) 13:29, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Federal Highway Police (Brazil)#Requested move 26 February 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. GuesanLoyalist (talk) 07:46, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

For anyone here interested in biographies of lawyers, I have an edit request to update the article on James Sexton (attorney). It's a straightforward request to update the biography based on a Times of London profile piece. Full disclosure: I made this request on behalf of James Sexton via my work at Beutler Ink. Danilo Two (talk) 15:45, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Due to taking off the Yearbook website, this is now completely unsourced. I had to demote it back to a stub. Please add reliable sources. Note that if you register for the Unref backlog drive, you can earn a Barnstar! Bearian (talk) 20:47, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Brad S. Karp#Requested move 13 February 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 13:09, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Quintin Hogg, Baron Hailsham of St Marylebone#Requested move 22 February 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 04:48, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

I am looking for help with a way to explain amusement ride regulations on this Draft:Regulation of amusement rides in the United States. I am particularly worried about states with comprehensive regulations and not sure what I should include. Also I need help with generally including the quality of the writing. Sorry that this message is messy too. AllegedlyAPhotographer (talk) 12:44, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Also I am not sure how I can keep things readable and not very repetitive. AllegedlyAPhotographer (talk) 17:44, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

My advice is to find the citations first, and then build the article from there. I know, it's counter-intuitive and against what you might have been taught, but it's workable. Bearian (talk) 11:44, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Please add reliable sources. Note that if you register for the Unref backlog drive, you can earn a Barnstar! Bearian (talk) 11:42, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Unsourced since its creation in October 2013. I can't find any reliable, secondary sources. This survived a proposed deletion. Please add reliable sources. Note that if you register for the Unref backlog drive, you can earn a Barnstar! If, however, you take the matter to WP:AfD, please alert us here. Bearian (talk) 23:35, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Just notifying members of this project that there is a Conflict of Interest edit request relevant to this WikiProject at the Foley & Lardner article. DrThneed (talk) 01:24, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello WikiProject Law editors,

I am posting here to request assistance from an independent editor willing to review and potentially submit a biographical article on Jennifer R. Rebholz, a Phoenix, Arizona attorney and former President of the State Bar of Arizona (2021–2022).

I have a conflict of interest in this matter and am following Wikipedia's COI guidance by requesting that a neutral editor evaluate the draft rather than submitting it myself.

Summary of subject: Jennifer R. Rebholz served as President of the State Bar of Arizona from 2021 to 2022, overseeing a 25,000-member organization that licenses and regulates attorneys under the supervision of the Arizona Supreme Court. Her election was historically significant as the first time the Bar's two top leadership positions — President and President-Elect — were simultaneously held by women. She currently serves as Senior Counsel at Zwillinger Wulkan PLC, is a board-certified specialist in personal injury and wrongful death, and chairs the State Bar's Board of Legal Specialization Task Force (2024–2025).

Sources identified:

• "New Ariz. Bar Leader On Social Justice And Attorney Diversity" by Sarah

Martinson, Law360 Pulse, June 24, 2021 — fully independent, named journalist, Rebholz is sole subject (paywalled)

• "Ever Forward: New Bar President Jennifer Rebholz" by Tim Eigo, Arizona

Attorney Magazine, July/August 2021 — full independent profile, sole subject, named journalist

• "President's Message: Future-Proofing Specialization" by Ted A. Schmidt,

Arizona Attorney Magazine, May 2025 — supporting reference

Draft location: The fully prepared draft is available at: User:WilloDesert/Jennifer_Rebholz

What I am asking: I am not asking anyone to advocate for this article. I am simply asking whether an independent editor would be willing to:

1. Review the draft for neutrality, sourcing, and compliance with BLP policy
2. Offer feedback on whether the notability threshold is met
3. If satisfied, submit through AfC or move to mainspace directly

I am happy to answer any questions.

WilloDesert (talk) 05:14, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Article Pornography in Austria has been proposed for merging into Pornography Act (Austria). Your feedback is requested at this merge discussion. Mathglot (talk) 05:44, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello WikiProject Law editors,

I am posting here to request assistance from an independent editor willing to review and potentially submit a biographical article on Jennifer R. Rebholz, a Phoenix, Arizona attorney and former President of the State Bar of Arizona (2021–2022).

I have a conflict of interest in this matter and am following Wikipedia's COI guidance by requesting that a neutral editor evaluate the draft rather than submitting it myself.

Summary of subject: Jennifer R. Rebholz served as President of the State Bar of Arizona from 2021 to 2022, overseeing a 25,000-member organization that licenses and regulates attorneys under the supervision of the Arizona Supreme Court. Her election was historically significant as the first time the Bar's two top leadership positions — President and President-Elect — were simultaneously held by women. She currently serves as Senior Counsel at Zwillinger Wulkan PLC, is a board-certified specialist in personal injury and wrongful death, and chairs the State Bar's Board of Legal Specialization Task Force (2024–2025).

Sources identified:

• "New Ariz. Bar Leader On Social Justice And Attorney Diversity" by Sarah

Martinson, Law360 Pulse, June 24, 2021 — fully independent, named journalist, Rebholz is sole subject (paywalled)

• "Ever Forward: New Bar President Jennifer Rebholz" by Tim Eigo, Arizona

Attorney Magazine, July/August 2021 — full independent profile, sole subject, named journalist

• "President's Message: Future-Proofing Specialization" by Ted A. Schmidt,

Arizona Attorney Magazine, May 2025 — supporting reference

Draft location: The fully prepared draft is available at: User:WilloDesert/Jennifer_Rebholz

What I am asking: I am not asking anyone to advocate for this article. I am simply asking whether an independent editor would be willing to:

1. Review the draft for neutrality, sourcing, and compliance with BLP policy
2. Offer feedback on whether the notability threshold is met
3. If satisfied, submit through AfC or move to mainspace directly

I am happy to answer any questions. Thank you for your consideration.

WilloDesert (talk) 16:31, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

What is the nature of your conflict of interest? Do you work for Ms. Rebholz or do you have a personal or business relationship with her? voorts (talk/contributions) 16:59, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

thank you so much. Personal relationship. WilloDesert (talk) 17:02, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Did you use any form of AI to generate your draft? voorts (talk/contributions) 18:27, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

thanks you for your question. claude (anthropic) was used to help follow the Wicki standards to be neutral and more encyclopedia-like. hopefully this helps comply with wicki intent and creates less work for potential reviewers. thank you. ~2026-14986-40 (talk) 18:40, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

It does not. We don't accept AI generated content. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:45, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. So should I instead submit a previous version? It is less neutral but happy to work through and learn about the process. Thank you. ~2026-14986-40 (talk) 18:51, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Please log back into your account. Do you have three independent sources that discuss Ms. Rebholz in depth? voorts (talk/contributions) 18:58, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

thank you. yes. 3 main sources identified in draft. thank you. ~2026-14986-40 (talk) 19:16, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Please link them here. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:42, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Sources identified:

https://www.azattorneymag-digital.com/azattorneymag/20210708/MobilePagedArticle.action?articleId=1712096#articleId1712096

"Ever Forward: New Bar President Jennifer Rebholz" by Tim Eigo, Arizona

Attorney Magazine, July/August 2021 — full independent profile, sole subject, named journalist

"New Ariz. Bar Leader On Social Justice And Attorney Diversity" by Sarah

Martinson, Law360 Pulse, June 24, 2021 — fully independent, named journalist, Rebholz is sole subject (paywalled)

https://www.law360.com/pulse/articles/1395654/new-ariz-bar-leader-on-social-justice-and-attorney-diversity

Law360 Plus may be pay-walled

Account

New Ariz. Bar Leader On Social Justice And Attorney Diversity

By Sarah Martinson | 2021-06-24 10:51:59 -0400

The new president of the State Bar of Arizona, Jennifer Rebholz, has ambitious plans to continue her predecessor's work of promoting social justice, adding more diversity to the bar and addressing racial bias in the legal system.

Jennifer Rebholz

Rebholz, a personal injury litigator who recently joined Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP in Phoenix as of counsel, replaced Denis Fitzgibbons as president of the State Bar last week.

Rebholz has been involved in the Arizona Bar since almost the very beginning of her legal career in 2007 when she was a trial attorney at Farley Choate & Bergin. She became involved in the Bar's young lawyers division and eventually became president of the division. After that, she joined the Bar's board of governors and was eventually elected future president of the bar.

"Even if not everything is completed by the end of my term, I'm confident that [the president-elect] ... will continue with these objectives and these goals and really make sure they all get across," Rebholz said.

Here, Rebholz spoke to Law360 Pulse about her goals for the state bar and how she plans to achieve them. The interview has been edited for length and clarity.

What are your priorities as bar president?

We've got a lot of things going on, and one of my priorities is continuing with the recommendations from a social justice task force created last year. Some of those recommendations we're still in the process of rolling out. Some of the things include getting more CLE that's focused on diversity and inclusion. In fact, we have a rule change before the state Supreme Court right now to require one of our hours every year to be focused towards diversity and inclusion. And likely that would also be an ethics component, but it doesn't necessarily have to be.

One of the other recommendations is for gathering more information with regards to diversity and potential bias. [The task force] realized that we really don't keep very good records when it comes to things like discipline [in terms of gender, race or ethnicity] in Arizona. Our discipline system is part of the State Bar and the board of governors. We don't really keep track of gender, race and ethnicity when people go through that system. So when people say, "Are you disciplining different races differently or different genders differently?" we just don't even have that information. So we're trying to gather all that information so we can really take a look and, and hopefully be able to say, "No, we don't."

One of the bigger things that I'm really excited about is working with the courts now that we're out of COVID and working with the bar foundation, which is our charitable arm of the State Bar, to figure out how the technology that we were all forced to use during the pandemic can be continued to really provide access to justice.

You want to go back into court, but I think what the pandemic has shown us is, particularly for initial appearances or family law cases, you don't necessarily have to have somebody who has to take an entire day off work to drive downtown for a half-hour hearing if they could do it via Zoom. Now you're actually having people participate meaningfully in these hearings and you're having people show up without putting their jobs in jeopardy or having them get on three or four different buses to figure out how to get downtown.

I'm really looking forward to working with the courts on what kinds of technology we need to keep in place so that people have better access to the courts versus just going back to how things were before because people are tired of Zoom. It's kind of going to be a hit and miss when figuring out which things work and which things don't, but I'm really excited to work with them on that.

Do you have other goals for the bar to enhance social justice and access to justice?

The recommendations are a great start. I really want to make sure that that's not where we end. There are a couple of different task forces, some with the courts, some with us, that are taking a meaningful look at jury selection — how we handle jury selection, how we are deciding who's going to come down for jurors, how we are sending them questionnaires. We have a group with the Supreme Court that's looking at that to try to make sure we get more diversity and more fairness in our jury system. Same with the CLEs that we present.

We're not looking at necessarily making any quota like you have to have one woman or one minority on any CLE. We are looking at what kinds of things we do as a Bar and as a community to increase the pool of people that we're asking to come in and be speakers. Are we partnering with sister bars like the Black Bar Association? What are we doing to get a greater pool of people that we're pulling from and ask me to do these things?

A lot of people will say that the Bar Association has a higher concentration of people from big law firms. On some level, I think it's easier for big law firms to absorb the volunteer hours and time that it takes for people to be meaningfully involved in these committees. But we are looking at what kinds of things we can do to try to make that more diverse, get more people who are either solo practitioners or at small firms, and what kind of initiative we can do to increase our diversity that way.

Can you tell me more about the continuing legal education classes that you want the bar to offer?

Part of that is diversity, inclusion and bias, and actually having those CLEs that discuss unconscious bias and how that plays out in your law firm. One of the things that we're working on is making it so that there's not one diversity CLE, but that you have lots of different options. I think it's important to have a lot of those that talk about unconscious bias and how that affects other people and what kinds of things you can actually do to try to change your behavior.

Earlier you mentioned wanting to make attorney discipline gender and race neutral. Have there been any incidents in Arizona of attorney discipline not being gender and race neutral?

That was a recommendation from the [social justice] task force to start gathering this information. I have no reason to believe that they are, but we don't have the information one way or another.

How would the bar collect data on its diversity and discrepancies in attorney discipline?

That's part of what we're working on. I think there were some recommendations for surveys, but that only helps if people actually answer the survey. We're trying to figure out a way to get the information in a meaningful way and then interpret it in a meaningful way. That may end up being partnering with some of the local universities or statisticians to help interpret it.

--Editing by Brian Baresch.

Clarification: This story has been updated to clarify a task force findings about Arizona bar disciplinary records.

"President's Message: Future-Proofing Specialization" by Ted A. Schmidt,

Arizona Attorney Magazine, May 2025 — supporting reference

https://www.azattorneymag-digital.com/azattorneymag/library/item/202505/4269020/ ~2026-14986-40 (talk) 19:53, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi Voorts, Could you confirm whether the three sources I listed are considered sufficient for notability? Thank you. ~2026-14986-40 (talk) 14:35, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Please be patient. We're all volunteers here. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:31, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

thank you. of course. ~2026-14986-40 (talk) 15:33, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Just notifying members of this project that there is a Conflict of Interest edit request relevant to this WikiProject at the James Sexton (attorney) article. DrThneed (talk) 21:18, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Just notifying members of this project that there is a Conflict of Interest edit request relevant to this WikiProject at the Free Law Project article. DrThneed (talk) 21:38, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Please add reliable sources. Note that if you register for the Unref backlog drive, you can earn a Barnstar! Bearian (talk) 09:54, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Please add reliable sources. I've had no luck, but I haven't done any IP work since 1998. Note that if you register for the Unref backlog drive, you can earn a Barnstar! Bearian (talk) 15:33, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello legal eagles. I have been working on a page on a California appellate court ruling Safechuck v. MJJ Productions and would welcome input from WikiProject Law editors, particularly on sourcing and legal wording. **PLEASE NOTE** the case is about [[:Category: Michael Jackson sexual abuse allegations]] which is an EXTREMELY contentious topic. I have been "brought up on charges" with the Wikipedia admins twice and that never happens to me! Anyway if you dont want the smoke as the kids say, dont get involved! Bhdshoes2 (talk) 20:20, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Blocking of Twitter in Nigeria#Requested move 15 March 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Abesca (talk) 05:44, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this case is notable. Please review, and if I'm wrong, please add reliable sources, or if I'm correct, then consider proposing deletion. Bearian (talk) 02:31, 18 March 2026 (UTC)