Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EBay


 * 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 Keep obvious WP:CORP. Zim Zala Bim talk  00:26, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

eBay
We all know what it is so an informative article not necessary. Plus several various issues with the article that I'm not willing to get into. --AfDproXX (talk) 07:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep This is a joke, right? Bad faith nomination. If the article has issues, improve it. Brianyoumans (talk) 07:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep and this user already has his level 4 warning for vandalism. Now he's got an ARV.  Have fun!  --Mr. Vernon (talk) 07:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * ... and he's gone after blanking the ARV page twice. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 08:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy LOL - nice try!  Lugnuts  (talk) 07:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep - Ridiculous. Dayewalker (talk) 08:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep - Obviously this article should be kept. But the fact that the nomination could have possibly gotten this far highlights a serious problem with the deletion process. If here were not people monitoring AFD then this article could have been deleted without proper justification. Flaviusvulso (talk) 08:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment And no-one who's said keep has said WHY it should be kept, citing relevant wiki-policy! ;-)  Lugnuts  (talk) 08:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep - WTF??? --128.113.195.248 (talk) 08:57, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * 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.