Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dewey, Cheatem & Howe

:{{la|Dewey, Cheatem & Howe}} – (View AfDView log{{•}} {{plainlink|1=http://toolserver.org/~betacommand/cgi-bin/afdparser?afd={{urlencode:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dewey, Cheatem & Howe}}|2=AfD statistics}})

:({{findsources|Dewey, Cheatem & Howe}})

Unsourced since forever. Nothing but an examplefarm, absolutely unsourceable. Largely untouched for past couple years. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 22:07, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

• keep admittedly the article needs sources, but there's references to this through The Three Stooges, Leisure Suit Larry, and many other pop culture icons. WP:SOFIXIT--Paul McDonald (talk) 23:03, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
• Keep, I'll bet this is searched for more than most real law firms for which we have entries. bd2412 T 01:10, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
• Note also: [http://books.google.com/books?as_q=Dewey+Howe&num=100&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=&as_oq=Cheatem+Cheatham&as_eq=&as_brr=0&as_pt=ALLTYPES&lr=&as_vt=&as_auth=&as_pub=&as_sub=&as_drrb_is=q&as_minm_is=0&as_miny_is=&as_maxm_is=0&as_maxy_is=&as_isbn=&as_issn= literally hundreds of Google Books hits]. Granted, most are mentions as a placeholder name, but we have articles on placeholder names for their memetic value (Blackacre, Joe's Diner). bd2412 T 01:15, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
• Keep, every law professor, including me, uses this name. The article just needs more citations. Bearian (talk) 20:43, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
• Keep Lots of sources. The only issue is that they don't agree whether it's Cheatam, Cheatem or Cheatum but we can address this by use of redirects. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:48, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
• Keep: Is nominator in their employ and trying to clear their name????? Hmmmm.--Milowent (talk) 22:33, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
• Keep: This is exactly the type of information I come to Wikipedia to look up. I might not know how to justify it in terms of WP policies but it is an extremely useful article and to delete it would simply detract from the power of Wikipedia.--Modelmotion (talk) 03:36, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
• Keep. Searching by [http://books.google.com/books?lr=&num=100&as_brr=0&q=%22Dewey%2C+Cheatem%2C+and+Howe%22+stooges&btnG=Search+Books "Dewey, Cheatem, and Howe" stooges] gives a return that says "Perhaps the most famous trio of names associated with the Stooges — lawyers Dewey, Cheatem, and Howe — was never actually used ..." but I cannot read the rest due to the snippet view. By varying the spelling, other (admittedly weaker) sources abound. Some people have actually used the name to pass bad checks, and went years without being caught. Abductive (reasoning) 08:35, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
• Keep I love this article! Who knew there was such good, encyclopedic, well sourced material on a flippant old catch phrase? My compliments to the editors. --MelanieN (talk) 02:31, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
• Keep Nominator please stop nominating things without searching first yourself. Click the Google news search and Google books search links at the top of the AFD. It comes up enough time to indicate its probably notable, and clicking and reading some information, would verify that it is. Many references have been added to the article since the AFD. Dream Focus 05:50, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
• Keep Notable topic, numerous GHits, GScholar hits, GBooks hits, etc. There's non-trivial coverage present in reliable sources. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 10:09, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
• Snowball keep TomCat4680 (talk) 17:36, 14 March 2010 (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.