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. John254 03:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Contract attorney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

1) article is orphaned with no article linking to it 2) Only one anonymous author 3) This article is just a term definition and belongs in Wiki Dictionary 4) Seems like just any excuse for spam links Fife Club 16:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the nominator. Just wanted to clarify reason #2 was incorrect (was looking at the talk page). Not just one author for this article, but this is still an orphaned article. Perhaps this is better suited for WikiDictionary (and possible link farming). --Fife Club 17:05, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 18:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The party of the third part agrees with the party of the second part that the party of the first part should be Deleted. Clarityfiend 22:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and expand. DJ Creamity^{Oh Yeah!} 00:33, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Well-known type of legal work. I removed the orphan tag after linking the article to others. Tagged for rescue, cites needed. Bearian 00:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC) I'm still working on it. Bearian 01:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC) I removed the spam links. Bearian 18:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I (the original nominator) think this is great that somebody is taking the initiative to fix up the issues with this article. My biggest issue was definitely that it was orphaned (making it a useless article), but it appears you've already fixed that, plus added a few citations too. Good job. I'm okay with Keeping the article after the fix ups. (P.S. The only reason I found this article was because I was following the past contributions of a known spammer, which is a totally different story.) --Fife Club 19:06, 4 December 2007 (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.