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 keep. King of♥♦♣ ♠ 18:37, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Deserves a subsection in another article perhaps. Only if you can find sources for it. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 17:41, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of♥♦♣ ♠ 00:23, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. Google reveals plenty of sources about this, e.g.[1][2] The article already cites (under External links) IRS bulletins, and a Snopes page that contains a long list of sources. Here's some examples of the news coverage, which suggests that the scam has been around for quite a few years in various forms:[3][4][5][6][7] Here's some examples of editorial commentary about the scam[8][9] --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:14, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - well known and sourceable urban legendand scam. All the major urban-legend websites and books reference it. Useful for our core readership (secondary school and college students) and others besides. Bearian (talk) 17:21, 5 October 2011 (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.