Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lemon law

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 moved to Lemon Laws, kept there. Titoxd^(?!?) 06:13, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lemon law

This article is anything but encyclopedic Isolani 15:34, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete for CSD A8 - copyvio of www.carlemon.com -Satori ^(talk) 16:42, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I've rewritten the article. It's a stub, but there is room for expansion. probably needs to be monitored so copyvio doesn't get introduced back into it.--Isotope23 16:46, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand Isotope23's rewritten version. Capitalistroadster 17:02, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment this was deleted by Uncle G after the rewrite, due to the copyvio in history. I have since redirected it to Lemon Laws which is a more substantial article than the rewrite was. The text of the rewrite was "Lemon law is a term used to refer to a series of laws dealing with ownership of defective automobiles. These laws vary from state to state, but generally allow for the owner of a defective vehicle to receive compensation either monentarily or in the form of a replacement vehicle from either the seller or the manufacturer." in case Isotope23 wishes to merge the two, but it's mostly just a restatement of the same. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:20, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Yes Lemon Laws is a better written version than my stub. I wikified it; nothing to merge except one link to a list of laws by state. At the end of the day, I think this AfD can be closed.--Isotope23 17:23, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
  • The servers are quite slow today. I was actually waiting for the 2 revisions of Isotope23's rewrite to be restored, which took several minutes, at the time that you created the redirect. ☺ Uncle G 17:31, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• I rescind my delete vote, the redirect was a good idea. --Isolani 17:26, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• With Uncle G's removal of the copyrighted material there's no need to delete the redirect, so I'm striking out my delete vote. -Satori ^(talk) 21:31, 2 November 2005 (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.