Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Albro v. The Agawam Canal Co.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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'
Albro v. The Agawam Canal Co.[edit]
- Albro v. The Agawam Canal Co. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Doesn't meet WP:N Gordonrox24 | Talk 16:02, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi, I had this article on my watchlist, I am trying to save it because we learned about it in the first year of law school. I've tried to overhaul the content, and I believe I've solved all the "multiple issues." However, "notability" is in the eye of the beholder so I am not going to remove that tag unless you agree. Thanks. Agradman appreciates civility/makes occasional mistakes 17:57, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Couldn't we just move most of the content to fellow-servant rule if this case is not notable by itself? Remember (talk) 18:29, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- comment we could, but I believe I've upgraded the content enough to show how the case is notable, and I'd like a referendum on that before we discuss its demise ... :) Agradman appreciates civility/makes occasional mistakes 18:51, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 19:11, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 19:11, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Argued before a state supreme court, and discussed in treatises. Fg2 (talk) 01:01, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep This article has been significantly improved since the nomination. It is discussed in multiple treatises and casebooks. Meets notability requirements.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 17:40, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes I agree. This article now satisfies WP:N.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 19:35, 28 June 2009 (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.