This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Law. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

1. and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Law|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Law. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

Purge page cache

watch

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

See also: Crime-related deletions.

List of federal judges appointed by Donald Trump in the second term (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Undiscussed article split. Article should remain at List of federal judges appointed by Donald Trump for judges appointed in his first and second terms, as is the case with List of federal judges appointed by Grover Cleveland. Safiel (talk) 01:20, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Law, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:34, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no need for another article; if the main page gets too lengthy, then a split discussion can be initiated. Until then, I see no reason why this article should exist. jolielover♥talk 02:51, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Philip S. Cifarelli (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I have carried out WP:BEFORE for this article on a doctor or lawyer. I cannot find significant coverage to add. He is quoted sometimes in the media when acting as a lawyer, but this is not coverage of him. The current version of this article relies heavily on his obituary on legacy.com; Earwig reports 83% similarity. I wondered whether his gold medal from the American College of Legal Medicine might contribute to notability, but that organisation has no article, so I am unsure how notable its awards are. Tacyarg (talk) 23:04, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Medicine, and California. Tacyarg (talk) 23:04, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Seems to have published a number of papers on digestive medicine issues, per Gscholar. It doesn't bring up his h-factor, so I have no idea how influential he was... This is about all I could find for the law portion of his career [1] an ad or a PR item... This guy seems to have had an interesting career, I find it hard to believe there isn't more about him... Happy to revisit if others can find sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 00:34, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- interesting life story, but the obituary can't be considered independent and the medal he received did not come with significant coverage of him. Mrfoogles (talk) 01:41, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Common Criteria Evaluation and Validation Scheme (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. No WP:SIGCOV in non-WP:PRIMARY or coverage that is not WP:PASSING. Longhornsg (talk) 06:02, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Military, and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 06:02, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wilner v. NSA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG. Coverage is WP:ROUTINE and not WP:LASTING. Not a significant law suit/court case in any way, which the Supreme Court of the United States indicated by denying its writ of certiorari. [2] Longhornsg (talk) 05:58, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Military, and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 05:58, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Not !voting yet, but noting that I've just corrected one of the three sources used, because it was misattributed -- it's the group that filed the case, not a third party. There's only one third-party source here, and it's a mere two paragraphs, so that doesn't say much for the notability. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 06:26, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to draft. A Google Books search brings up a fair number of hits, but this seem mention-y. Still, there might be something there. BD2412 T 16:12, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note. I added one source to the page, which also has about two paragraphs on the case. I would still be on the fence for notability, but I am wondering if this can be merged somewhere. BD2412 T 01:12, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of Evidence (ARB) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

More Guantanamo cruft. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTDICT. Not a notable legal term. No secondary WP:RS coverage that is WP:SIGCOV. Only WP:PRIMARY and WP:OR. Longhornsg (talk) 05:55, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Military, Cuba, and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 05:55, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 06:38, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of Evidence (CSRT) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

More Guantanamo cruft. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTDICT. Not a notable legal term. No secondary WP:RS coverage that is WP:SIGCOV. Only WP:PRIMARY and WP:OR. Longhornsg (talk) 05:54, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Military, Cuba, and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 05:54, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails WP:GNG, more cruft by same creator. Mztourist (talk) 06:40, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Recorder (CSRT) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG. Clear case of WP:NOTDICT. There's no WP:SIGCOV in secondary WP:RS on this concept that would establish notability. Article has been tagged for more than 15 years about the need for additional sources, with no update. Longhornsg (talk) 00:36, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Military, Cuba, and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 00:36, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails WP:GNG, more Guantanamo cruft. Mztourist (talk) 06:45, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Guantanamo Bay detainee uniforms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Another piece of Guantanamo cruft. Fails WP:GNG, as these are just prison uniforms at a notable prison. We don't have an article about ADX Florence uniforms. There's no WP:SIGCOV on the prison uniforms themselves to establish notability. Only WP:PASSING. And the article is a collection of WP:SYNTH. WP:ARTICLEAGE or WP:HARMLESS are not valid arguments for notability and thus keeping. Longhornsg (talk) 00:28, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Military, Cuba, and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 00:28, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom as utter trivia. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:27, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:GNG. FWIW original creator indeffed. Mztourist (talk) 09:09, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Guantanamo Bay detention camp. The topic isn't notable enough to warrant its own article, but there should be at least a few sentences about the uniforms on the Guantanamo Bay article. Opm581 ^{(talk | he/him)} 04:45, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Combatant Status Review Tribunal transcripts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

More Guantanamo cruft that doesn't meet WP:GNG on its own. There's nothing inherently notable about these transcripts, unlike documents we have articles for, such as the Pentagon Papers. This is one of thousands of such document releases each year by the Department of Defense. This article is a mix of WP:DIRECTORY and WP:PRIMARY. If anything, redirect to Combatant Status Review Tribunal, where it makes more sense, but I wouldn't lose sleep over deletion. Longhornsg (talk) 00:24, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Military, Cuba, and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 00:24, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all One now-blocked user's obsession with all mundane features of the Guantanamo detention facility is cluttering Wikipedia and wasting our time. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NOT, all of them (and this one is arguably the most reasonable of the bunch). WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 11:49, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 09:10, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bader Alomair (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

There are plenty of sources that carry a fleeting mention of his involvement in some extradition cases but none which treat the subject in depth that would establish notability. BEFORE (in English) reveals much of the same. Fails WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:22, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:21, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:22, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - as the author of the article I probably oughtn't to vote but regardless of the current depth of coverage (which isn't bad) I am reasonably confident that there remain other sources which I have not yet located, either in English or in Arabic. The BBC News article refers to some of them: "We discovered news articles highlighting instances of Mr Alomair helping those left homeless by a hurricane in Florida, for example. But we also discovered his assistance had extended to more controversial situations." I couldn't find anything on the former incident but it looks like something's out there. RexSueciae (talk) 16:24, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Virginia and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:34, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete appears to fail anybio as there are not sources with enough depths of independent coverage and interest. Unicorbia (talk) 12:37, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mariam Abdullah Al-Jaber (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I don't think this person is notable enough. I couldn't find enough reliable sources to prove its notability. فيصل (talk) 01:17, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Qatar-related deletion discussions. فيصل (talk) 01:17, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Law. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:19, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ethics policy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This topic is already covered at Business ethics and this namespace is too generic to be useful for a redirect. JFHJr (㊟) 03:51, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Social science. JFHJr (㊟) 03:51, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge – Instead of removing this article, we could merge it with the business ethics topic. It has some information that doesn't fully overlap with the other article Mangoflies (talk) 04:12, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  There's nothing worth merging. All the sources cited that actually relate to the topic (meaning, not a commentary on Aristotle) are frankly garbage. Remsense ‥ 论 04:32, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per above. Remsense ‥ 论 04:33, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:40, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. Self-evident. Hyperbolick (talk) 09:25, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Hyperbolick, it looks merged. What now for the namespace? JFHJr (㊟) 04:18, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Isn't the norm redirection? Hyperbolick (talk) 04:23, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge. It covers business ethics issues so this stub article should be merged with the larger article of business ethics. Knox490 (talk) 11:10, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Which parts? It's already done, and better, at business ethics. JFHJr (㊟) 02:13, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge, especially the second heading. The Business ethics article doesn't really explain this section. Justjourney (talk) 03:51, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

   Done. See here. Was there anything else that needed merging? JFHJr (㊟) 04:02, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I will add the fact that it is based on common sense Justjourney (talk) 04:14, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

   Done, added the statement into the article, and added the citation. Justjourney (talk) 04:19, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for doing what you recommended be done. I appreciate hands-on responses. Is there anything worthwhile left? And if the merge work is done, what should happen to this namespace? JFHJr (㊟) 19:35, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Not very sure at the moment. Justjourney (talk) 02:06, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, if you can't put your finger on anything else to merge, I hope you'll consider changing your !Merge. Thanks again for your help! Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 04:21, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gold Card (residence permit) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Pretty clear-cut case of WP:TRUMPCRUFT. Fails WP:CRYSTAL, no indication that this will actually be pursued. E_F⁵ 14:37, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Economic citizenship or something similar. This is not a 'clear cut' case of WP:TRUMPCRUFT , this is legitimate proposed policy afaik, but i would agree it doesn't warrant its own article. Braedencapaul (talk) 14:42, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and Rename to "Gold Card (proposal)" This surmounts CRYSTAL as the article is about a policy proposal which does actually exist, not a residence permit that does not (see other non-CRYSTAL articles about policy proposals such as Proposed United States acquisition of Greenland, Proposals for new Australian states, Proposals for a European Super League in association football, etc.). However, the title needs to be modified to match the text of the article. Beyond that, sufficient WP:RS to pass WP:N. Worst case scenario we should wait two weeks and evaluate then to see if it passes WP:10YT based on sustained coverage or implementation. Chetsford (talk) 15:47, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

fine with this but would still prefer a better disambiguation (proposed residence permit)? absolutely this one will require future re-evaluation, but at this point that would be fine. Braedencapaul (talk) 17:27, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: TOOSOON. Honestly Trump says all kind of things... We've been waiting for tariffs in Canada "shortly" or "very soon" for three months now. I'd take anything he says with a grain of salt, and this is no different. If/when it becomes a thing, we can revisit. Oaktree b (talk) 15:47, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  think this was what he was talking about with WP:TRUMPCRUFT, but as noted above, if the article is written about the subject as a "policy proposal" the speed of implementation isn't really relevant to its notability. Braedencapaul (talk) 17:33, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Braedencapaul, that's exactly what I mean. Trump says things all the time, most of which don't actually come to fruition. I would support having an article once this is actually implemented, but for now we have no way of knowing if this is just another thing he's said. — E_F⁵ 14:34, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  "I would support having an article once this is actually implemented, but for now we have no way of knowing if this is just another thing he's said" We don't need to know. If there is WP:SIGCOV of a policy proposal there is no obligation upon us to predict whether or not it will ultimately be successful before we chronicle it (i.e. we don't have to wait for the U.S. to "annex" Greenland to create Proposed United States acquisition of Greenland or for The Green New Deal to pass before we create an article on it). TRUMPCRUFT is an essay, not a policy and not a guideline. For better or worse, Trumps says a lot of things and RS report heavily on them to such a degree that they become fixtures of discussion and ideation, thereby cresting our minimal SIGCOV threshold. It would be one thing if this were reported on one day and then died, but there has been sustained coverage over the better part of the last week with new coverage being enterprised just in the last 24 hours by CNBC [3], Axios [4] and the Associated Press [5]. Chetsford (talk) 03:08, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:59, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Politics, and Economics. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:47, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• I think this is important information regardless of whether it has been implemented as policy. It was stated by trump that this “gold card,” was going to replace the existing green card. It’s important to document all of the random things that his administration says they’re going to do, just to keep track. This proposal is to increase the price of citizenship from 1 million to five, and the wording indicates to me that it’s also is a potential creation of a tax haven in the USA, for wealthy people from other countries to stash income made in other countries, tax free. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noahhumphrieslepage (talk • contribs) 20:00, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — Per Oaktree b. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 03:58, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, clearly trumpcruft. If this actually comes to fruition it can be re-written. Esolo5002 (talk) 15:29, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, trumpcruft. I'm getting annoyed with how many trump articles there are, like Donald Trump and handshakes. Like what?? lol

Coulomb1 (talk) 01:00, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The proposal was mentioned in the state of the union, so I find it hard to understand the categorizing of it as "another thing trump will probably never actually do" Braedencapaul (talk) 20:49, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And who was the person who said it at the SoTU? He lied several times during his address, what makes this a truth? E_F⁵ 20:52, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that we landed on the moon does not make an article about moon landing conspiracy theories not notable. Braedencapaul (talk) 21:01, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is terribly combinative actually, sorry. In a more clearheaded way: I do not believe that just because trump has a tendency to lie about proposed policies, we shouldn't have articles about any of them. This one seems fairly likely to be implemented, and based on its continuous coverage, and the fact that he's mentioned it multiple times now, including in the state of the union, seems to support this. Braedencapaul (talk) 21:10, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete : Another trumpcruft . Gauravs 51 (talk)
• Delete the usual WP:TRUMPCRUFT jolielover♥talk 10:46, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

State violence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

It's just not encyclopedic. Unbelievable POV, specious claims, pushing an inherently subjective narrative. State terrorism seems like it's doing what this one article is trying to, from a factual standpoint. This just takes that and then adds the claims that any form of borders are unacceptable violence, the American state is forcibly sterilizing minority women to maintain a white ethnostate, etc. I just don't see the need for this on an encyclopedia, when all it really is is a list of links to interesting articles on real problems, with absolutely insane commentary added. Bruhpedia (talk) 12:02, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's in a terrible state and probably needs a complete rewrite, but refs [1..3] are solidly reliable sources, all explicitly discussing "state violence". That means it's a notable thing. It doesn't appear to be a synonym of state terrorism, either. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:21, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Blow it up and start over there's a notable concept here, but the article needs massive amounts of work. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:16, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and revert to the stub it was here, which seems to avoid the problems that the current version has. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 09:21, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep and rewrite. Technically, this is grounds for speedy keep as an invalid rationale (WP:SKCRIT) as it doesn't address any of the reasons for deletion. The reasons listed in the nomination are neutral point of view which the nominator sees as unencyclopedic, but this is not enough to fall under what Wikpedia is not, and is thus invalid. Per WP:ATD, problems that can be fixed with editing should be done instead of nominating for deletion. In terms of notability, it is very obviously a notable topic, no questions asked, and—per Chiswick Chap—is a seperate topic from State terrorism. I will begin working on rewriting the article as soon as I can, and a reviewing admin can decide if this is speedy keep or not. —Sparkle and Fade (talk • contributions) 23:22, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I was wrong, monopoly on violence, not state terrorism, is the article that covers a lot of the same issues this article does, but more evenhandedly.

  Regardless, it's obviously a notable term, but if it's a synonym or hyponym of monopoly on violence that doesn't mean we have to keep the article instead of merging it. My issue was that the article was 1,000 words of subjective critical theory that has no place here, and, once you excised that, all that's left is a stub definition of monopoly on violence (with a bit of state terrorism, insofar as there's anything at all.

  If the article can be rewritten to have encyclopedic value, that's great, and obviously preferable to deletion. I just think that deletion is preferable to leaving it as is, per Wikipedia:NOTADVOCACY, and arguably Wikipedia:NOTOPINION and Wikipedia:Soapbox. A stub reversion could work too, if 95% of the work has been done by Weber, but there's some worth in noting that this term builds on state violence in whatever corner of postmodern theory. Bruhpedia (talk) 01:28, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Also, notability doesn't necessarily mean it's worth keeping, I'd say it falls under Wikipedia:Junk. Better to rewrite from scratch per Wikipedia:TNT, but better to delete than let be. Bruhpedia (talk) 08:20, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Discrimination, Law, and Politics. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:13, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Monopoly on violence in lieu of TNT at this point. State violence, a sociological concept with its origins in Weber, and state terrorism are fundamentally distinct concepts. Regards,--Goldsztajn (talk) 05:42, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  This is what I was thinking. It's not distinct from monopoly on violence, an article that uses "state violence" interchangeably at times. Bruhpedia (talk) 01:13, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Enos733 (talk) 16:24, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. There is an abundance of published and accessible reliable sources addressing state violence. State violence is also distinct from the the discussion of the monopoly on violence. If we were to start collapsing together articles on fleshed subjects, we might as well also merge the article on the monopoly on violence into the article on sovereignty, and then merge the article sovereignty into the article on authority and then continue ad infinitum. Appreciably, the article is not in a good shape and needs to be rewritten - but that's not a reason to delete it. Once this AfD process is resolved, I'll contribute towards improving the page as it falls within my wheelhouse/interests. Boredintheevening (talk) 00:25, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • typo: should say "on related" not "on fleshed", autocorrect while mobile editing.

  Boredintheevening (talk) 08:28, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]