Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Discovery Doctrine


 * 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. Can&#39;t sleep, clown will eat me 05:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Discovery Doctrine

 * — (View AfD)

Completely unsourced, appears to be an essay of some kind, or other original research --AbsolutDan (talk) 03:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep but Cleanup Have you tried searching "Discovery Doctrine" on Google? Even a wikipedia article mentions it. Right now it reads like a personal essay, but it is a legit topic. —Mitaphane talk 03:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment nothing here is sourced, if it can be cleaned up then great, but without sources it fails WP:V and WP:OR. --AbsolutDan (talk) 04:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and wikify. Easy to find sources for this. It's a shame the articles currently blows though.
 * http://ili.nativeweb.org/sdrm_art.html
 * http://thorpe.ou.edu/guide/robertson.html
 * http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/118/Dec04/Recent%20Cases/US_v_JohnsonFTX.pdf
 * http://www.indiancountry.com/content.cfm?id=2541
 * http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=%22Discovery+Doctrine%22+-wikipedia&btnG=Search --Wafulz 04:46, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - Definitely a valid topic. Cleaned it up a bit, using some of the sources Wafulz pointed to.  It definitely needs some more work, though.  I'm certainly no expert in the field, so I'm not sure if I got the most important bits. -- Jonel | Speak 08:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and wikify per above. Wryspy 11:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Looks much better now, thanks for the good guys. Consider me a Keep now too - someone can speedy keep this now if they want. --AbsolutDan (talk) 00:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, rewrite and rename Discovery (legal doctrine) . The doctrine is a well known one, and should be sourced easily enough. Ohconfucius 05:13, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - Rewrite? I just did... with sources... about two days ago... What is wrong with the article as it is now?  And why the rename?  The sources clearly use "discovery doctrine" as a phrase, sometimes capitalized and sometimes not, but the term is certainly used. -- Jonel | Speak 07:56, 13 January 2007 (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.