Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Werner Erhard and Associates v. Christopher Cox for Congress

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. Article is overflowing with reliable sources. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 09:10, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Werner_Erhard_and_Associates_v._Christopher_Cox_for_Congress[edit]

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

lack of notability Spacefarer (talk) 15:54, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - 66 sources is much better than most at WP:LAW. Bearian (talk) 20:29, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think we need more of an argument for deletion than "lack of notability" if you're arguing against a well-written article with more than sixty sources. (See also my vote here). — Hun ter Ka hn 01:10, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are obviously issues with the article, but no question of notability. Take up other concerns at the talk page. hamiltonstone (talk) 06:55, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Um...what? Is this just a joke nomination or something? Silver seren^C 08:49, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Well written with over 60 sources. No question of notability. --DizFreak ^{talk Contributions} 08:52, 28 March 2010 (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.