Revision as of 11:51, 14 December 2005 edit SockpuppetSamuelson (talk \| contribs) 397 edits →Comments ← Previous edit		Revision as of 13:01, 14 December 2005 edit undo 68.163.141.101 (talk) No edit summary Next edit →
Line 171: * '''Keep''' -- Harvard ''ergo'' notable. --[[User:SockpuppetSamuelson\|SockpuppetSamuelson]] 11:51, 14 December 2005 (UTC) *"And guy, "overrun"? If this is what passes for legal thinking at one of America's most prestigious law schools, I fear for the future of American jurisprudence. --Calton \| Talk 08:55, 14 December 2005 (UTC)" - since when is a wikipedia entry classified as legal thinking? Does a proctologist have to talk about anuses all day? Not everything done by a lawyer (let alone a law student) meets the rigourous critera for formal legal reasoning. Ever hear of the law of diminishing returns? Well, putting too much effort into something like Wikipedia would not be very smart, would it?

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nick Rose Day: Difference between revisions