Deletion of Elements of International Law

Comment: The article is in terrible shape, but the book easily meets  #1 (and probably 3 & 4). A ''Korea Herald'' article noted just a few days ago that this "famous book" "became one of the must-read books in the then upper echelons of Japan" (http://www.koreaherald.com/opinion/Detail.jsp?newsMLId=20100907000976 here), it was reviewed in ''Atlantic Monthly'' in 1866 (http://digital.library.cornell.edu/cgi/t/text/pageviewer-idx?c=atla;cc=atla;rgn=full%20text;idno=atla0018-4;didno=atla0018-4;view=image;seq=00519;node=atla0018-4%3A1 here), and ''New York Times'' articles have covered it several times (including http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F00713F63D5C11738DDDAF0A94DB405B8885F0D3 here & http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F40617F7355D11738DDDA90994DF405B8885F0D3 here). And http://books.google.com/books?id=sb-qGM5-gB8C&pg=PA26&dq=%22Elements+of+International+Law%22+Wheaton&hl=en&ei=-UyMTOqYHoKKlwfb64Bg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CEIQ6AEwBDgK#v=onepage&q=%22Elements%20of%20International%20Law%22%20Wheaton&f=false this Oxford Press published 2004 book  calls the book "a classic treatise" and then goes on to discuss it. http://books.google.com/books?ei=-UyMTOqYHoKKlwfb64Bg&ct=result&id=9mTuAAAAMAAJ&dq=%22Elements+of+International+Law%22+Wheaton&q=%22Elements+of+International+Law%22 This 2004 Clarendon Press book says the book was "entered into the canon of Americna law."  This is not even a close call. I see why a quick look might lead one in the other direction, but I would hope the deletes and nom woudl change their !votes at this point
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NB)

Comment: I would have ed it
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Proposed deletion (WP:PROD)

Comment: Notable as several sources describe it as a very important work (http://www.bartleby.com/226/0612.htmlhttp://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=F40617F7355D11738DDDA90994DF405B8885F0D3http://www.koreaherald.com/opinion/Detail.jsp?newsMLId=20100907000976 and others).  is no valid argument for deletion, the claim that this article will be of no help for writing a better one is unfounded. Also, it has improved much since nomination
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:UGLY)