Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Real bills 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 of the debate was KEEP NTK 21:33, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Real bills doctrine
This article is in a real mess and appears to be at least partially original research. Further, the author claims ownership of the article. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 17:09, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * week keep Superficially it looks like an encyclopedic subject and is sourced, but obviously needs major cleanup. The author clearly doesn't yet understand wikipedia style, but don't bite the newbies for trying! &mdash; brighterorange  (talk) 17:54, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak keep and clean up, per above. It's a legitimate subject . If kept, it probably should be moved to Real Bills Doctrine. PJM 18:08, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep deletion is not an alternative to improving. For great justice. 19:39, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep I has a pretty rich history, and there were points were it looks at lot nicer than it does now. Jon513 19:41, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep, whatever is (surely) wrong with the article, none of the nominator's assertions are valid grounds for deletion. Monicasdude 21:42, 5 April 2006 (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.