- 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The result was Withdrawn as article has been sourced and expanded. ZimZalaBim talk 12:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Friendly fraud (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
WP:DICDEF, unsourced for nearly 2 years. ZimZalaBim talk 03:48, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep. I've cleaned up the article, adding references and expanding it beyond a dicdef. --T B C ♣§♠ (aka Tree Biting Conspiracy) 05:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per above. Nice one, TBC. — Byeitical (talk · contribs) 05:43, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep: reason for nomination redundant. Soaringgoldeneagle (talk) 08:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- how is it "redundant"? --ZimZalaBim talk 12:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep Given the sudden clean up, this AfD should probably be pulled, and i'm sure the original nominator would be happy to withdraw, especially conisdering all his problems have now been replaced with good sources. Perhaps next time he should reach for the unreferenced or fact templates. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 10:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- it has been tagged as unsourced since October 2006, so why would I add another one? If no one found sources in over 2 years, considering an AfD is reasonable. --ZimZalaBim talk 12:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.