Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ben Aulich


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Liz Read! Talk! 00:42, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Ben Aulich

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Brought up at BLPN. After reviewing the sources in the article and through google news. I believe this is a WP:BLP1E. Notability is from his alleged money laundering activities. WP:CRIMINAL Every other sources involve the cases that he took and are supported only by trivial mentions of his name in RS. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:12, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Australia. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:12, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:26, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete Notability problems aside, I find this article highly problematic. It reads like a piece of WP:ADVOCACY and WP:RGW. Additionally the article engages in flagrant WP:BLP violations by claiming that persons who were respondents in civil disputes were prosecuted. This is irredeemable rubbish. TarnishedPathtalk 11:21, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment I've just reviewed the edit history for the article, particularly material removed by another editor which was in the original article and that has cemented my view that this article was created for the sole purpose of WP:ADVOCACY and WP:RGW. TarnishedPathtalk 11:32, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete - the only possible claim of notability relates to the money-laundering allegations but that has WP:BLP1E and WP:CRIMINAL issues per the nominator. All the rest is cases he's been involved with but that's just a lawyer doing lawyer stuff and doesn't make him individually notable. Neiltonks (talk) 12:02, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination by Morbidthoughts. The comment by TarnishedPath is informative as to why this article exists at all. The motive relates to real world concerns in court and in ragsheets. Motive of authors isn't a reason to delete, but helps me understand why WP:GNG etc. was never a goal or concern for this article's authors. JFHJr (㊟) 21:33, 26 September 2023 (UTC)


 * @Morbidthoughts @Shellwood @TarnishedPath @JFHJr @Neiltonks I am the article’s author. Thank you for your feedback regarding its issues. It’s my first attempt at creating an article and this is helpful information. I will edit the page to address the concerns raised around WP:BLP, WP:BLP1E, WP:ADVOCACY, WP:RGW, WP:CRIMINAL and also adding links and sourcing. I believe the article on Ben Aulich is a valuable encyclopedic resource. If his case goes to trial in the Supreme Court of Australia it will likely be newsworthy at a national level (given the issues around disclosure that link closely with the high-profile Lehrmann/Higgins case and a similar cast of prosecutors and police). I believe the Wikipedia page would be a good reference for those with an interest in finding out more about Ben Aulich, including media covering any trial. I understand there is an option to move the page into draft space until the issues around notability are resolved. Would appreciate any feedback on whether this would be a consideration rather than deletion, if the consensus is that the page should not be published? Thank you. 2023WikiUser (talk) 23:15, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I would encourage you to read all of those policies you linked in full plus more. Also this subject just doesn't have independent, in-depth, non-trivial, broad coverage from reliable sources that justifies an article. A simple google search confirms that, with most of the hits being their own firm or social media. TarnishedPathtalk 23:49, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The only problem with speculative newsworthiness of a future court case is that it does not speak to notability of this subject. If the hypothetical SC case were itself notable, there should probably not be a WP:BLP on each litigant, but an article on the case. JFHJr (㊟) 21:19, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * P.S. A draft? I would eventually WP:MFD a draft of this if one is made. It will go stale because you can't remedy notability where it ain't. Otherwise, I'd chip in at MfD if anyone noms said hypothetical future draft before I notice. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 03:56, 28 September 2023 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.