This article is within the scope of WikiProject Michigan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Michigan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MichiganWikipedia:WikiProject MichiganTemplate:WikiProject MichiganMichigan articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
I am considering nominating this article for deletion per WP:AFD. The greatest bit of notability--the EMU issue--is minor at best and can't meet the WP:N requirements? At best, this firms involvment is tangential, or trivial. But hey, lets see the argument for why it isn't. So why is a group who at best recieved minor (at best, the name was mentioned in a few articles) media attention for writing a report meet the WP:N requirements. Furthermore, where does the absolutely unsourced statement about "recieving wide media attention" come from? There is no source that states that. At best, it is subjective. At worst, it violates WP:POV. So what is your rational? From the history, I am not the only person who has seen problems with this addition. Maybe--at the LEAST--you need to reword the article. If it doesn't improve, I will nominate it for deletion as any relevancy is trivial--at best. Thank you. 24.11.174.6620:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Go for it. All I did was revert the edit you made that had no summary. I had no idea why you made the edit. Now I do. Nburden21:06, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
