Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Discretionary review

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The result was Speedy keep, nomination withdrawn. — ERcheck (talk) 17:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Discretionary review (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Nothing more than a one sentence definition. No references. Orphaned. Fails WP:DICT Rtphokie (talk) 01:21, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. As this is a topic of great importance to any independent judiciary, the description above is a crying shame that calls out for correction -- not deletion. I've added some key points. --Dhartung | Talk 05:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Expanded article shows notability. This seems to be something that simply started out in an excessively stubby state. Mangoe (talk) 14:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
• Withdrawn This article has been much improved. I'd like to withdraw it from consideration for deletion.--Rtphokie (talk) 14:37, 3 February 2008 (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.