Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Copeland "Anti-kickback" Act

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The result was Keep - nomination was effectively withdrawn after substantive re-write (non-admin close). Stalwart111 (talk) 03:05, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Copeland "Anti-kickback" Act

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

~~Only copied content from the source, non-encyclopedic.~~ Keep after rewrite. Makecat _Talk 04:24, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~, no encyclopedic content. This seems like a reasonable topic for an entry, but this isn't it. Hairhorn (talk) 17:18, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to keep after rewrite, thanks. Hairhorn (talk) 13:51, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ No encyclopedic content, simply copying from the source. Buggie111 (talk) 17:33, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to keep after rewrite. Buggie111 (talk) 14:56, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. AutomaticStrikeout 18:00, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as re-written. I agree with all of the editors above that the article had no content in the form it held at the time this AfD was initiated ([1]). However, as User:Hairhorn notes, it is a notable topic, this just isn't an article that covers it; so I've done a re-write ([2]). The re-written form is a stub, but worth keeping. TJRC (talk) 21:13, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. User:TJRC has completely reworked the article and added six sources. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:49, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The topic is notable, the article has been rewritten, and the copied content has been removed.--xanchester (t) 20:21, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, looks quite well cited as of current inspection. — Cirt (talk) 00:23, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.