Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chthonic law


 * 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 because the subject is notable. (non-admin closure). TonyBallioni (talk) 01:14, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Chthonic law
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article appears to be a non notable fringe theory by a nonnotable academic. Does not contribute anything to Wikipedia. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michellechapman (talk • contribs) 19:51, 30 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment Was already deleted. Nom probably meant to nominate Chthonic law, which is already at AfD. This page doesn't exist. Can we close this? No wait, it looks like this is Chthonic law's AfD, but up top it says Cthonic law. I'd fix that, but I'm afraid it would break something. Smartyllama (talk) 17:35, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * and, I fixed the link to the article that has been nominated for deletion. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 21:58, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * - Hey, thanks for fixing the link. I realize that it was I who made a typo when originally listing this article for deletion and I apologize for the error. Michellechapman (talk) 23:42, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * , thanks for the kind reply. I am always happy to lend a hand if need help navigating any of the processes here at Wikipedia. Some of the instructions can be be quite tricky. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 23:48, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Much appreciated! Michellechapman (talk) 23:53, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:GNG. There are a substantial number of books and journal articles that discuss this topic. In addition to the sources cited in this article, see:   Like many articles on Wikipedia, this could use expansion and updating, but it should not be deleted. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 00:57, 1 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep While it's clearly an obscure bit of legal/philosophical arcana, it has many reliable sources that establish notability. Alicb (talk) 20:44, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2016 November 9.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 10:48, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep per Notecardforfree. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 17:38, 9 November 2016 (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.