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 Speedy close Not a deletion discussion. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 04:24, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Identity fraud[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Identity_theft#Identity_fraud_to_be_created Elvey (talk) 23:23, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Certainly a notable topic (to some extent it's my day job), article shortcomings merely need some expansion.

OTOH, how about deleting this user with extreme prejudice for their choice of username? 8-( It's impossible to reconcile that username with any pretence of GF. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:47, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I usually tend to lean towards the deletion end, but this is an important notion and absurdly nominated.WildHorsesPulled (talk) 23:51, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did any of you follow the link I provided explaining the reason I proposed deletion? I think not! OF COURSE the topic is notable. Why do we need Identity theft and Identity fraud??--Elvey (talk) 00:31, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close - AfD is not for discussing mergers. If editors feel the two topics are one and the same, that is a reason for merger or redirection, not deletion. (And there isn't sufficient discussion to determine consensus at the link provided anyway.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:06, 23 October 2009 (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.