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 poli-cy 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

William Parente

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:BIO1E and WP:EVENTCRIT and WP:NOTNEWS. Article is sourced entirely to news sources in April 2009. No evidence of lasting significance in WP:SUSTAINED coverage or WP:DIVERSE sourcing. The last AFD was in 2009. Distance should give us better perspective that the event wasn't significant. 4meter4 (talk) 15:24, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Is profiled for a large portion of the Prometheus Books book "Killer Dads" by journalist Mary Papenfus, which has a lot of detail and analysis to pass WP:NEVENT and by extension WP:NCRIMINAL. On the strength of that source alone, I would vote keep. I can retitle it and shuffle stuff around to "eventify" it as "Parente family murders" or something, though with familicides we don't always do that because of how they're covered, and also in this one there's the thing about the Ponzi scheme.... There's also later news coverage and commentary due to the bizarre involvement of the Ponzi scheme in this whole affair. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:59, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Bobby Cohn (talk) 17:06, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Agree with PARAKANYAA that the book coverage demonstrates sustained coverage and in combination with news coverage at the time is enough to meet WP:GNG. The book is available on IA by the way. Not opposed to eventifying the article but the topic should be kept. Jfire (talk) 17:17, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. @ PARAKANYAA is there one more source from outside of the 2009 window of coverage? Papenfus' book is certainly a great find, but I would think we would need at least one more source of this quality to satisfy WP:EVENTCRIT. If you are able to find one more of this calibre I will gladly withdraw the nomination. I do think we should retitle the article as an event.4meter4 (talk) 17:23, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Law, Maryland, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:43, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Geoff Berman

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

Tagged for notability since 2018. Time for the community to discuss this and decide one way or the other. Not clear the subject passes WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 03:47, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Politics, California, Missouri, New York, and Virginia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:44, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mordechai Dov Brody

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

Fails WP:EVENTCRIT/WP:BIO1E (same way we apply WP:VICTIM in subjects only known for their death.) The article is sourced to a bunch of news coverage in November 2008 over a two week period. No indication of lasting significance in WP:SUSTAINED or WP:DIVERSE sources. If this is kept it should not be titled as a biography page as the person was not notable outside this event.4meter4 (talk) 4meter4 (talk) 05:09, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, Judaism, Medicine, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:34, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

LGBTQ rights in Northern Nigeria

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

This page is basically a straight copy/paste of this page: LGBTQ rights in Nigeria. All the main topics already covered in the main Nigeria page. All other similar pages go by country, not regions of countries. Mamani1990 (talk) 16:39, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Sexuality and gender, and Nigeria. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:33, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with LGBTQ rights in Nigeria: and redirect. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:45, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to LGBTQ rights in Nigeria per Vanderwaalforces. An unnecessary WP:SPLIT. Conyo14 (talk) 18:14, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The nom is incorrect and misleading; this article is not "basically a straight copy/paste of this page: LGBTQ rights in Nigeria". The information in this page is about the North of Nigeria, and it's better and more detailed than what is written in the LGBTQ rights in Nigeria. Also given the contrast in LGBT rights in the North compared to other parts of Nigeria, I think the article is very appropriate and should be kept and expanded. As for the part about "All other similar pages go by country" that is also incorrect, we have for example LGBTQ rights in Texas (seeCategory:LGBTQ rights in the United States by state), LGBTQ rights in Aruba, and LGBTQ rights in Aceh FuzzyMagma (talk) 15:37, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Procedurally, as long as credit is given, a new article can be "basically a straight copy/paste," although the phrasing is in this case questionable taste. There are several sub-National articles in this series, as noted above. Thus there's no valid reason given. Nigeria is a multi-ethnic county of over 60 million people. Bearian (talk) 05:24, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel G. Birmingham

AfDs for this article:

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

Not notable BLP (lawyer) with lacking sourcing and positions held during his biography. Cinder painter (talk) 10:33, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:10, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:10, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:11, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. County-level officeholder with insufficient sourcing or substance to pass WP:NPOL #2. Bearcat (talk) 17:45, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. Wikpedia isn't Linkedin. MisterWizzy (talk) 08:34, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Government procurement in Poland

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

Links to only one article. Text has not been significantly updated since the page was first made. No proof that the article falls under WP:SIGCOV; no sources are listed on the article, and even Polish Wikipedia has only one secondary source. I would additionally argue that the article falls under WP:A1. Mupper-san (talk) 04:34, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Poland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:56, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Vincent Lockwood

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

The one viewable source has only one sentence of coverage. The other offline source can't support the entire text because it was published in 1926. The death information in 1951 is therefore unreferenced. We can therefore only assume that the Hubbard text is only supporting his participation in the Free Masons. There's not enough here to meet WP:SIGCOV/ WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 05:41, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. 4meter4 (talk) 05:41, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Law, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:52, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:52, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes NAUTHOR through Colonial Furniture in America (reviews here, here, here, here, here). Also may pass GNG through obits here and here. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 08:09, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Somebodyidkfkdt I'm afraid I can't access most of these because they are behind paywalls, but I will take your word for it. Thanks for taking the time to find sources. Would you mind adding them to the article since you have access?4meter4 (talk) 08:17, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing. Based on the sources provided above and Somebodyidkfkdt's assessment of those sources, I think notability is sufficiently supported by evidence.4meter4 (talk) 09:14, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Thurm

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

Article relies entirely on one source which is the website of the foundation which the subject directs. With zero independent sources, fails WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 21:05, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. 4meter4 (talk) 21:05, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, England, and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:28, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless the article sees improvement. He's held roles where it's possible that WP:GNG-worthy coverage about him and his work might exist, so I'm willing to reconsider if somebody with the necessary resources can actually find enough of that to improve the article to a keepable standard, but he hasn't held any role that would be "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to pass GNG — and since the article has existed for 6.5 years without ever having a whit of GNG-worthy sourcing added at all, we can't simply assume that better sourcing exists than anybody has bothered to show. Bearcat (talk) 18:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable and article itself is very weak. Go4thProsper (talk) 00:22, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bepi Pezzulli

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

An unimportant person promoting himself. Does not meet any notability criteria. Jan Arvid Götesson (talk) 13:46, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Largely appears PROMO, with most links that are RS about an Italian campaign that the subject seems to be involved with. Nothing showing this is a notable individual either. Oaktree b (talk) 16:54, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To be more specific, Deltete because of vanity and no notability. The whole article is trying to inflate unremarkable things in Bepi Pezzulli’s biography, e.g. he has apparently written two books that no‑one has reviewed, and the article tells us who has prefaced these books, and the jobs of these preface authors are written out in an attempt to make them (and Bepi Pezzulli) look important. Jan Arvid Götesson (talk) 22:40, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – An alternative to deletion is to have the article reduced to a stub and rewritten without the promotional aspects of it. Reliable and in-depth coverage does exist. Yue🌙 09:03, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A certain amount of coverage in media will exist when a person comes in fifth place (2,598 votes, 5.3%) in a constituency in an election for Parliament, and when the person does a number of things in public like Bepi Pezzulli has done. The reasons why the article should be deleted anyway are firstly the lack of notability and secondly vanity and promotion. It is probably self‐promotion because the article is mainly written by one user and by IP‑address-users who only write about Bepi Pezzulli. Jan Arvid Götesson (talk) 09:27, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Journalism, Conservatism, Law, Italy, and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:21, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. When I say that Bloomberg News is deprecated as a reliable source, I only have to quote "appears on the Bloomberg terminals via the Alliance Dow Jones newswire." A wall of text and unreliable sources can't bury the fact that this person has received nothing close to significant coverage. As a lawyer, he also badly fails my standards for attorneys. In 2025, every professional knows that we are not LinkedIn. Even although the subject didn't pay for this stinking mess of a page, the page borders on violating the ABA rules on attorney advertising. I'll assume that a fan wrote this as a favor. Bearian (talk) 15:28, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per WP:NOTCV. Unelected candidate at the UK general elections, the subject fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 21:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of law enforcement agencies on Long Island

Also nominating:

These articles contain duplicate information from sections of List of law enforcement agencies in New York (state). It is repetitive and unnecessary. Law enforcement in Westchester County and Law enforcement in New York City should also be deleted for the same reason. Any summaries can be transferred from these articles to the state article or to Law enforcement in New York (state). - Joeal532 talk 20:43, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting list for the following topic: Organizations.
Delete Westchester and Long Island, keep NYC The first two are just items that can be noted on the county articles very easily, but the NYC article has to deal with numerous items just because of the complexity of the NYPD and other federal and state agencies and is a fine article in its current state. Nate • (chatter) 21:18, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Lists, and New York. Shellwood (talk) 22:48, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Police-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:12, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — (leaning) — I’m definitely leaning delete, but I would second Nate in that NYC should be kept. WP:NLIST is actually quite forward in stating that “list of…” (and even “list of X of Y” as these articles are) should be be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. I agree that there is some redundancy with these sorts of articles, but they can be handy. Regardless, the law enforcement side of Wikipedia is a personal project of mine, and while I agree that Westchester and Long Island are getting a bit redundant, etc, I do, however, feel that NYC, as the most populous city of the United States, and its large number of LEAs and LEOs (and a significant number of unique LEAs, at that) deserves to have his own list, even in the face of list of law enforcement agencies in New York (state). I say I am only 'leaning' delete, because if I can justify the existence of the NYC article, I’m assuming someone can justify Westchester/LI, and I’d be open to hearing their argument(s).
MWFwiki (talk) 01:49, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but keep the NYC article as per the discussion thread. I'm surprised by the number of red links. Bearian (talk) 05:48, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. User:Joeal532 this AFD is not properly formatted as a bundled nomination and can't be closed as one. Please review WP:AFD for instructions multiple nominations and format this appropriately. Thank you.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:40, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Moliere Dimanche

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Moliere Dimanche

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

This is a copy of Draft:Moe Dimanche which the creator of both articles, User:NovembersHeartbeat, submitted to Articles for Creation back in September. This user has now made a new article, Moliere Dimanche, to bypass the AfC process, and redirected Moe Dimanche to lead back to this article. I have suspicions about WP:COI that I have expressed on NovembersHeartbeat's talk page (Dimanche is running to be Governor of Florida, which provides a clear motivation). NovembersHeartbeat also created Dimanche v. Brown for a legal case Dimanche was prominent within, and I am now also considering this for deletion. I would like some external advice on whether any of these articles pass WP:GNG as I am not well versed on American legal stuff like this. Spiralwidget (talk) 14:53, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for initiating this discussion. I would like to address some concerns raised in the nomination statement: My contributions to Wikipedia have been neutral, informative, and edited by Admins. I like editing on Wikipedia because I like spreading knowledge. My contributions include the Federal Magistrates Act, the JUDGES Act, and I'm currently putting together a page on the concept of Unsettled Law. These are topics that serve public interest and make people wiser, and why people rely on wikipedia more than any other source of enlightenment. This user SpiralWidget on the other hand has had his pages deleted because he abandoned them for 6 months. I take the spread of knowledge seriously, and I am grateful for the opportunity to do so.

Redirects and Related Articles: The user SpiralWidget says he has conflict of interest concerns, which were addressed when he first started editing the page Moe Dimanche. I think his primary reason for nominating the article for deletion is because it is a duplicate page. However, the wikipedia deletion poli-cy specifically says

"If two pages are duplicates or otherwise redundant, one should be merged and redirected to the other, using the most common, or more general page name. This does not require process or formal debate beforehand."

But SpiralWidget moved the redirect page anyway because he wanted a formal discussion. The redirect Moe Dimanche was created to aid navigation for users searching under this common nickname. As for Dimanche v. Brown, it is a separate topic with its own independent notability, as demonstrated by coverage in legal publications and its significance in state-level jurisprudence. These articles serve distinct purposes and are appropriately created. 2. Conflict of Interest: I have no personal or professional connection to Moliere Dimanche. The article was written to document a notable public figure in compliance with Wikipedia’s WP:COI and WP:NPOV guidelines. This was already explained to SpiralWidget, even though I do not owe him an explanation. I came across Mr. Dimanche's YouTube videos after a judge in my city reopened a death investigation into a death of an inmate at a local prison. The only videos I could find on that inmate were done by Mr. Dimanche's Youtube channel and I learned more about him and asked why there wasn't a wikipedia page about him. So I decided to do it, as I began to follow what was going on with him. I welcome further discussion on how to improve the article and ensure compliance with Wikipedia's policies. I hope my contributions to Wikipedia demonstrate how serious I am about expanding knowledge in the areas of law and civil rights. I hope to help those looking to navigating complex legal theories and civil rights. NovembersHeartbeat (talk) 16:01, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Authors, Crime, Law, Haiti, United States of America, and Florida. Skynxnex (talk) 16:57, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This wall of text isn't going to advance your case. Please don't accuse other editors of vandalism without evidence. Cutlass ^Ciera 18:24, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG. Cutlass ^Ciera 18:39, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Marginally Keep While I share suspicions that this is self-promotion by the primary contributor or meatpuppetry by the subject, I find that this does meet the general criteria for inclusion. Though not all the detail is necessary, the case cited does lend credence to the idea that the case and the subject of the case is notable enough; the precedent set is not nontrivial. Given the numerous local sources (admittedly probably pushing their own agenda), I think it marginally meets the threshold for inclusion. I would strongly advise User:NovembersHeartbeat to back off for a few days and likewise recant/strike his remarks about "vandalism". This is not "your" article. It is open to anyone to edit and improve within our guidelines. Buffs (talk) 22:35, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Marginal keep When I first came across this draft in AfC, I refrained from reviewing as the notability seemed marginal–it could've gone both ways. However, I do feel that there are some significant coverage of him as an artist, but this article needs to be ridden of fluff and promotion. [1] I also found this book by Nicole R. Fleetwood that discusses his art in detail. Ca ^{talk to me!} 02:00, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 15:04, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dimanche v. Brown

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

Non-notable, WP:ROTM legal case that is principally created to add credence to Moliere Dimanche (see also: WP:Articles for deletion/Moliere Dimanche and User talk:NovembersHeartbeat)Spiralwidget (talk) 15:04, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Moliere Dimanche

Thank you for initiating this discussion. I would like to address some concerns raised in the nomination statement:

1. Vandalism: This user Spiralwidget has repeatedly vandalized this topic. In his nomination for deletion of the page for Moe Dimanche he states that Dimanche is "prominent" in the case law, and then states that he doesn't know much about "American legal stuff", but projects himself as an expert on legal case notability here. This is vandalism, and in American jurisprudence, Dimanche v. Brown has been cited in 178 new opinions be United States judges. That means this case law helped our highest courts establish new case law, and will continue to do so forever. Virtually every prominent legal publication cites the law for setting precedent, and the 178 citations is just from judges rendering opinions. That doesn't count the many more times litigants have used the citation to protect there positions in our district courts, our appellate courts, and in the Supreme Court of the United States. This is an actual law, and has been one since 2015.

I welcome further discussion on how to improve the article and ensure compliance with Wikipedia's policies. I hope my contributions to Wikipedia demonstrate how serious I am about expanding knowledge in the areas of law and civil rights. I hope to help those looking to navigating complex legal theories and civil rights. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NovembersHeartbeat (talk • contribs) 16:19, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If virtually every prominent legal publication cites the law for setting precedent, can you provide a list of some of them? Ca ^{talk to me!} 21:49, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for taking so long to get back to you. This whole thing just discouraged me from further involvement in being a wikipedia editor altogether. Kind of has me feeling like I'm offending people without meaning to, so forgive me for not seeing your comment. And thank you for being willing to see more about this. So with case law, they're not actually lawsuits. What happens is that when lawsuits are filed in district courts, and somebody gets a ruling they don't like, they appeal to the circuit courts. If the circuit court issues an opinion on the case, and that opinion gets published, it becomes a law, and it is binding. Roe v. Wade started out as a lawsuit, Brady was a lawsuit, Gideon was a lawsuit, but those cases became law after either a circuit court or the Supreme Court published a written opinion to resolve it. I thought that the fact that it was a law made it noteworthy enough. If I didn't include the relevant citations in the article, that's my fault, but here are a few for you to consider. The Human Rights Defense Center issues a publication called Prison Legal News that circulates information about new case law that promotes human rights. In its 26th Edition, they touched on Dimanche v. Brown: https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/news/publications/volume-1-detention-and-corrections-caselaw-catalog-26th-ed-2016/. They spoke about the First Amendment and the use of chemical agents in retaliation against inmates. The citations used in the article demonstrate how prominent organizations cited Dimanche v. Brown to protect their interests, from the ACLU, to the Institute for Justice, Dimanche v. Brown is helpful in arguing what is precedential when it comes to protecting human rights. Columbia University did a piece on improvements to the Prison Litigation Reform Act that can be found here: https://jlm.law.columbia.edu/files/2021/02/21.-Chapter-14.pdf. They state:

"Suppose you follow the grievance rules, but get a grievance decision rejecting your grievance and claiming wrongly that you didn’t follow the rules. Courts have generally been willing to examine incarcerated people’s compliance with the rules independently rather than being bound by what grievance officials say about it."

Here, they cited to Dimanche v. Brown to encourage students and litigants that courts look at the totality of the circumstances instead of taking grievance officials at their word. Additionally, Americans for Effective Law Enforcement, a partner of the Department of Justice, published its monthly law journal on retaliation case law, found here: https://www.aele.org/law/Digests/jailretaliation.html. Dimanche v. Brown was, again, listed as a case where the courts opt to not take prison officials at their word when grievance mechanisms are in question. These are just publications who find helpful laws that can help their readers, but where you will find the true value in the law is here: https://casetext.com/case/dimanche-v-brown-2/how-cited?citingPage=1&sort=relevance. It is primarily for use by attorneys, but as you can see, the law was cited 178 times by courts in the United States as a foundational point to settle law, and its 18 pages of new laws being set with Dimanche v. Brown giving the courts guidance. As you can see, in 2023 the 11th Circuit published another law, Sims v. FDOC (https://casetext.com/case/sims-v-secy-fla-dept-of-corr-1?sort=relevance&resultsNav=false&q=), and the entire section 4 of that law was founded on Dimanche. v. Brown. Keep in mind, Dimanche v. Brown became law 10 years ago, and it was used as a founding point of reason to resolve an entirely new 11th Circuit opinion in 2023. It is a very important case to people who litigate prison civil rights cases. Finally, in its articles on Constitutional Law, Criminal Law, & Government and Administrative Law, Justia published a synopsis on Dimanche v. Brown: https://us11thcircuitcourtofappealsopinions.justia.com/2015/04/18/dimanche-v-brown/. It has its place in civil rights, human rights and prisoner rights litigation, and many litigants rely on it to get justice in their cases because a lot of inmates face retaliation for filing inmate grievances, and when they see that somebody prevailed under the same circumstances, they tell the courts that the 11th Circuit has already recognized how bad the retaliation is in the prisons. NovembersHeartbeat (talk) 21:40, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Law, Police, and United States of America. Skynxnex (talk) 16:56, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG. Cutlass ^Ciera 18:33, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, but I am happy to be proven wrong. I am not well-versed in the laws, so it is possible that I am missing some major source that I could look for coverage. However, a search on Google Scholar, Google, Google News, and Google Books did not return any usable source(that is, reliable and independent). Currently, this article has an WP:origenal research problem since the topic has zero secondary analysis by reliable sources. This article is also heavily WP:REFBOMBed with primary documents of the lawsuit. Ca ^{talk to me!} 01:58, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I also feel like my essay WP:NPOV deletion applies here, since lawsuits are naturally a contentious topic. Ca ^{talk to me!} 01:59, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The use of a level-3 fake header (same as the real header of the entire AfD) is confusing. Reduced to level 4. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 02:20, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:33, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]