Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Werner Erhard and Associates v. Christopher Cox for Congress


 * 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. Article is overflowing with reliable sources. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe 09:10, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Werner_Erhard_and_Associates_v._Christopher_Cox_for_Congress
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

lack of notability Spacefarer (talk) 15:54, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - 66 sources is much better than most at WP:LAW. Bearian (talk) 20:29, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - I think we need more of an argument for deletion than "lack of notability" if you're arguing against a well-written article with more than sixty sources. (See also my vote here). —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  01:10, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. There are obviously issues with the article, but no question of notability. Take up other concerns at the talk page. hamiltonstone (talk) 06:55, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep Um...what? Is this just a joke nomination or something? Silver  seren C 08:49, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - Well written with over 60 sources. No question of notability. --DizFreak talk Contributions 08:52, 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.