Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fred 3: Camp Fred
per meeting  and  through |sources being available for improving the article.  Sure, we have a topic contributed by an unschooled newcomer, and the thing http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fred_3:_Camp_Fred&diff=prev&oldid=506125642 as nominated is a |glaring mass of plot and contained no sources. So what?  When  finds that sources ARE available, we fix such article... not delete them through retaliation at what a newcomer contributed elsewhere.  We do not delete because something is a ''possible'' target of probematic edits. We can |watch.  We can |protect.  We can |improve such ourselves and show through example that it CAN be done. As shown above... one such sets of repeatedly removed edits in a related article were ultimately sourced. |regular editing is far preferred over a |battling over addressable issues. '''Note:''' it took only took about two minutes to begin adding sources.http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fred_3%3A_Camp_Fred&diff=506313754&oldid=506308783  What we need now is the use of more of the available sources,http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Fred+3%22&tbm=nws&tbs=ar:1#hl=en&gs_nf=1&ds=n&pq=%22fred%203%22&cp=20&gs_id=10&xhr=t&q=%22Fred%203%22%2C%20cruikshank&pf=p&tbs=ar:1&tbm=nws&sclient=psy-ab&oq=%22Fred+3%22,+cruikshank&gs_l=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&fp=25c85992bed88120&biw=983&bih=591http://www.google.com/#hl=en&tbm=nws&sa=X&ei=GbMhUKmVMOeY2wXY9YDABg&ved=0CC0QBSgA&q=%22Camp+Fred%22+movie&spell=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&fp=25c85992bed88120&biw=983&bih=591 and someone (maybe even me) to trim the living daylights out of the newcomer's overlong plot section. Addressable issues rarely require deletion, and AFD is not for forcing cleanup
— User:MichaelQSchmidt, 00:43, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:NF||WP:GNG||WP:NRVE||WP:UGLY||WP:BEFORE||WP:WATCH||WP:PROTECT||WP:SOFIXIT||WP:ATD||WP:BATTLE (Wikipedia:Notability)