- 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 of the debate was delete. RasputinAXP c 23:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Darren@nocuffs (talk • contribs) removed {{prod}} tag. WP is not a publisher of original thought or original research J\/\/estbrook Talk VSCA 20:50, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete original research and identified as such by the author. Just zis Guy you know? 21:29, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This guy is posting academia on wikipedia, too bad it's not the kind we need. Yanksox 21:30, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. Additionally, the title is generic but the article is clearly jurisdiction specific. Finally, I highly suspect this is partially advertising, given the tag line at the end of the article and that a quick google search shows there is a crimial defence lawyer in California by the same name of the original author at the same ___domain of "nocuffs". Fluit 21:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete with the rest. Fan1967 22:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Richardcavell 00:11, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, essay. Stifle (talk) 14:17, 18 May 2006 (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.