Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ney v. Landmark Education Corporation and Werner Erhard


 * 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. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe 09:14, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Ney_v._Landmark_Education_Corporation_and_Werner_Erhard
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

lack of notability Spacefarer (talk) 16:07, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - 25 sources, of which several show ongoing coverage by the Washington Post, for a Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals case, is much better than most at WP:LAW. Bearian (talk) 20:32, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - I saw this user has nominated for AFD two other similar articles (here and here) that share the same primary author. Considering how well written and well sourced these articles are, it's hard to assume good faith here at first glance... —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  01:08, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep as above, in spite of my inclination to delete this also via G10. I consider this very close to an attack page, however much my own views might align with the attackers. But the excessive and prejudicial article can be shortened and rewritten in a more encyclopedic fashion.    DGG ( talk ) 02:32, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. References establish notability. POV concerns can be taken up on the article talk page. hamiltonstone (talk) 06:50, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep References establish notability. agree with Ka, hard to assume good faith at first glance, especially when all three articles are well sourced. --DizFreak talk Contributions 08:48, 28 March 2010 (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.