Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Restoring the Lost Constitution (2nd nomination)


 * 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. JohnCD (talk) 16:52, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Restoring the Lost Constitution
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Still a non-notable book; article is still basically a very lengthy (and non-NPOV) re-hash of the book, which has won only one award, that being from a bookseller which specializes in books which advocate the same philosophy. This could be boiled down to a line or two and put back into the author's own article. Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  01:16, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 01:59, 12 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. I removed the sections that were not neutral (of which most of the article was comprised) and I also added several reviews from reliable law journals and the like. There should be enough at this point to keep the article.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 03:55, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. Clearly notable book with many reviews in reliable publications. JulesH (talk) 20:32, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Reviews show the book is "the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works" (WP:NBOOK). --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:03, 14 May 2012 (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.