| Revision as of 16:38, 28 February 2006 editFys (talk | contribs)14,706 edits →[]: close: speedy keep← Previous edit | Revision as of 09:38, 2 September 2012 edit undoKoavf (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users2,174,994 edits →[]: Substituting template per documentation, replaced: {{unsigned → {{subst:unsigned using AWBNext edit → | ||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
| The result of the debate was '''speedy keep'''. ] | ] 16:38, 28 February 2006 (UTC) | The result of the debate was '''speedy keep'''. ] | ] 16:38, 28 February 2006 (UTC) | ||
| ===]=== | ===]=== | ||
| Non-notable; just another baseless litigant in this lawsuit-crazed culture |
Non-notable; just another baseless litigant in this lawsuit-crazed culture <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 16:16, 28 February 2006</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> | ||
| *'''Speedy Keep'''. He has appeared multiple times on multiple news networks, and his various legal cases always make headlines. When his Pledge of Allegiance case was ruled in his favor by the Court of Appeals, the U.S. Congress and President Bush immediately responded. Whether or not his claims are baseless is for the courts to decide; if he were the generic lawsuit-crazed person this nomination implies, he wouldn't be on his way to argue before the Supreme Court for the second time. --] 16:25, 28 February 2006 (UTC) | *'''Speedy Keep'''. He has appeared multiple times on multiple news networks, and his various legal cases always make headlines. When his Pledge of Allegiance case was ruled in his favor by the Court of Appeals, the U.S. Congress and President Bush immediately responded. Whether or not his claims are baseless is for the courts to decide; if he were the generic lawsuit-crazed person this nomination implies, he wouldn't be on his way to argue before the Supreme Court for the second time. --] 16:25, 28 February 2006 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Speedy Keep''', nom is Gastrich noming notable atheists again. ]<sup>]</sup> 16:28, 28 February 2006 (UTC) | *'''Speedy Keep''', nom is Gastrich noming notable atheists again. ]<sup>]</sup> 16:28, 28 February 2006 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 09:38, 2 September 2012
- 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 speedy keep. David | Talk 16:38, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Michael_Newdow
Non-notable; just another baseless litigant in this lawsuit-crazed culture — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimmy Lee Wallace (talk • contribs) 16:16, 28 February 2006
- Speedy Keep. He has appeared multiple times on multiple news networks, and his various legal cases always make headlines. When his Pledge of Allegiance case was ruled in his favor by the Court of Appeals, the U.S. Congress and President Bush immediately responded. Whether or not his claims are baseless is for the courts to decide; if he were the generic lawsuit-crazed person this nomination implies, he wouldn't be on his way to argue before the Supreme Court for the second time. --Maxamegalon2000 16:25, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep, nom is Gastrich noming notable atheists again. KillerChihuahua 16:28, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. I didn't recognize the name, but certainly the case was notable and thus warrants an article. -Jcbarr 16:32, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy keep per KillerChihuahua. Bad faith AfD nomination. Weregerbil 16:37, 28 February 2006 (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.