Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Requirements contract

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 Speedy keep per WP:SNOW. Non-admin closure. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requirements contract

Wikipedia is not a dictionary,legal or othrwise Standatoms1985 (talk) 04:40, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. The article is not a dicdef, as there is much more to it than a mere definition. I also note that you have just created this account within the past hour, and yet all of your edits are nominations of articles for deletion, with reasoning that I feel fails to comprehend the proper basis for deleting articles. I strongly suggest that you invest some time into creating and improving content in order to get a better sense of what is properly subject to deletion. Cheers! bd2412 T 05:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Keep, article goes far beyond WP:DICDEF, although it could use some sources. --Dhartung | Talk 05:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - obvious keep, well referenced. matt91486 (talk) 06:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, although it could do with some sourcing and clean-up to make it more accessible to a lay audience TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 14:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, quite strongly. I'd be inclined to close this early if no actual delete votes are forthcoming; a brief glance at the article in question is enough to show that it is more than a dictionary definition. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:01, 3 March 2008 (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.