Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evergreening


 * 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. W.marsh 15:07, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Evergreening

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Cotested prod. A dic def with no scope for referenced expansion Nuttah68 19:21, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. I have expended the article and provided some context to document the concept's notability. Better sources are needed, and I'm sure those sources exist. There were supreme court cases in Canada and (I believe) the US as well, which debated the validity of this technique. There may be discussions in legal journals as well. In short, the concept appears to be moderately notable and verifiable, and should be kept. ZZ Claims~ Evidence 19:42, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Well worth expanding this article as there is a lot of info out there. Phgao 03:50, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions.   -- Gavin Collins 00:15, 21 October 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.