Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Law review

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP. —Korath (Talk) 17:33, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

Law review[edit]

Dicdef. Either needs to be deleted or moved to Wiktionary. -- Riffsyphon1024 21:11, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Seems to be an expandable topic (compare newspaper). Keep and cleanup. Meelar (talk) 21:51, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
Keep, and definitely expand. Megan1967 01:49, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep I've made it into a lovely encyclopedic piece. (pats self on back). Still needs further expansion, tho. Newbie BD2412.
Keep expanded version. But if this is a purely American phenomenon, it should probably say so already in the first paragraph. (And find a good category for the article.) / u p p l a n d 07:13, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Good expansion. Rossami (talk) 08:37, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Comment, well now that someone has improved upon it alot, I guess there's no reason to keep the Vfd up. -- Riffsyphon1024 06:20, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.