Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Estate of Jack Slee v. 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 09:16, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Estate_of_Jack_Slee_v._Werner_Erhard[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

lack of notability Spacefarer (talk) 16:13, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Significant coverage in 34 reliable sources feels like enough notability to justify an article. Alzarian16 (talk) 16:20, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Actually has 37 sources, of which several show ongoing coverage by the New York Times, for a Second Circuit Court of Appeals case, is much better than most at WP:LAW. Bearian (talk) 20:34, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Forgive me, but the simple statement "lack of notability" seems particularly weak considering how well written and well sourced this article is. It smacks of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. — Hun ter Ka hn 01:06, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep I think there is clearly sufficient news and book coverage for it to be notable, but the articles is drastic POV and prejudicial overcoverage. That almost all of us here might agree with the POV is not relevant. An extremely expansive article--judge's picture, seal of the court where the appellate decision was rendered, long description, excessive background, pathetic quote and the end, etc. I'm almost tempted to say G10, "Attack page", because the way it is written, that might well the purpose. DGG ( talk ) 02:21, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bearian, while sharing some of DGG's concerns about the POV. I made one edit to address this - others will be needed, but it isn't a reason to delete. hamiltonstone (talk) 06:53, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for nobility. Well sourced. Agreed that not liking a POV is not reason to delete.--DizFreak ^{talk Contributions} 08:44, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.