Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oil Gone Easy


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:31, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Oil Gone Easy

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Article created by User:Zithan as a result of paid editing (User:Ha!/paid editing adverts) and unsurprisingly is a barely-disguised infomercial for a product which does not meet notability guidelines. Disembrangler (talk) 15:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep: Article has been rewritten by unpaid editor, and sources establish notability. Laurent (talk) 22:50, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You didn't read the citations properly, did you? Hint:  I'm pretty sure for starters that the American Chemical Society will object to your characterization of its peer-reviewed journal Environmental Science & Technology as being an unreliable, self-published, source. Uncle G (talk) 22:21, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm, good point :D I admit I've dismissed the sources too quickly. For some reasons, I thought that the ACS paper was written by the same people who paid for having the article created, but it doesn't seem to be the case. Laurent (talk) 22:50, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That is probably because you are also being too quick to dismiss the article as "Reads like an ad, and COI issue." based upon what the nominator says, not what the article actually is. You're judging the article not on what it actually contains, but merely on who you think wrote it, based solely upon what a nominator said in an AFD discussion.  Here is another hint.  &#9786;  Uncle G (talk) 23:19, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you be clearer, what are you intending to demonstrate with the link - "Here is another hint"? Ha! (talk) 04:35, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I think what he's demonstrating is that the article has been thoroughly re-written since it was created by User:Zithan, so even though the question of who created the article and their motivation is completely irrelevant, it is a moot point even for those who mistakenly believe this has any relevance. NoCal100 (talk) 05:02, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Uncle G (talk) 05:28, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the motivations of the initial editor are important, especially for a specialized topic like this one. The creator of the article could essentially write anything he/she wants and if you want to verify his claims, you'll have to spend an hour or two to read through the sources (and buy the ACS one since it doesn't seem to be publicly available), try to make sense of them, and correct the article. Uncle G has done it in this instance, but in most cases I suspect this kind of COI articles stay as they are because of WP:HOLE. Laurent (talk) 09:43, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * If you want to discuss the importance of motivations, see what I wrote here. But the echoed point is that the "COI issue" doesn't, and didn't, exist in the article as it stands.  Neither does the "reads like an ad" issue.  And both of those are cleanup issues (that we have cleanup tags &mdash; POV check and advert &mdash; for) in any case.   Uncle G (talk) 12:33, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * There's nothing aggressive in the above. It's a hint.  And it is a hint.  It's intended not to be rubbing one's nose directly in the error.  Uncle G (talk) 05:28, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: There are 4 impeccable references, academic articles in peer-reviewed journals, which clearly establish notability. Paid-editing is not (at least not yet) a valid reason for deletion. If there are unsourced statements in articles, we tag them or remove them, we don;t delete the article because of it. NoCal100 (talk) 23:31, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Which specific references are you referring to? How do they establish notability (again, please be specific)? Ha! (talk) 04:35, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * have you read the article and its references? I Am refering to "The Prestige Oil Spill. 2. Enhanced Biodegradation of a Heavy Fuel Oil under Field Conditions by the Use of an Oleophilic Fertilizer" - an article from the academic journal Environmental Science & Technology, which is an in-depth review of the use of S-200; To "Evaluation of biodiesel as bioremediation agent for the treatment of the shore affected by the heavy oil spill of the Prestige" - an article from the academic journal "Journal of Hazardous Materials", which discusses the use of S-200 to treat the Prestige oil spill; to "Enhanced bioremediation of crude oil utilizing lipophilic fertilizers ", from the academic journal 'Desalination', which discusses S-200 in comparison to treatment with uric acid, and to "Effectiveness of bioremediation for the Prestige fuel spill: A summary of case studies", a paper published in the proceedings of the Advanced Technology in the Environmental Field: Second IASTED International Conference, which also discusses the use of S-200 to treat the Prestige oil spill. Any one of these would be more than sufficient to establish notability. The existence of 4 such academic references makes this AfD frivolous, at best, and a mean-spirited violation of WP:POINT, at worst. Do have a read of the article before making further comment. NoCal100 (talk) 05:14, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't (and don't) consider those academic references evidence of notability. Many chemicals get tested and published on all the time. Those references would justify inclusion in other articles, probably, on the Prestige spill say or on bioremediation in general. But not notability sufficient for a standalone-article. Disembrangler (talk) 09:55, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Then your idea of notability is wrong. Notability is not importance, nor significance.  We don't consider things non-notable because they are "just one of many chemicals" (or "just one of many asteroids/railway stations/islands/species of beetle/movies/laws in Australia/&c.").  This is an encyclopaedia, and our definition of notability is based upon being noted, in depth in multiple independent published works from people with good reputations for fact checking and accuracy, by the world at large.  We don't make subjective judgements of importance.  We're here to write a reference work, for all interests, general and special alike. Uncle G (talk) 12:33, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Notability is not the same as, but has a lot to do with, importance/significance. We're not about to have entries on every chemical ever mentioned in a scientific paper, are we? No, we need some evidence that the thing is "notable", by relying on sources which demonstrate notability (generally, media coverage and such). Academic sources may also demonstrate notability, if they can explicitly show the subjects - yes -importance is high enough to make it stand out from the crowd of similar chemicals, eg by being the most commonly-used of a significant class of chemicals, say. Merely being used in a study as a specific example of a general type of chemical does not do that. Disembrangler (talk) 12:57, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Notability for Wikipedia purposes is demonstrated by "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". That's what we have here. NoCal100 (talk) 13:47, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Mmm, key words "Significant coverage", which WP:N clarifies as ""Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail". Are these studies "addressing the subject directly in detail"? I don't know, I think they may just be using it because they've got to test a specific chemical (can't test a generality) and happened to pick that one. I don't think being used in a scientific study necessarily constitutes coverage in the usual sense of the term. Disembrangler (talk) 14:24, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * yes, these sources address the subject (S-200) in detail. Being used, studied and reported on in a scientific study is significant coverage. NoCal100 (talk) 14:31, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Any premise that implies I haven't read the article in enough depth is incorrect. Apart from the creator and his employer, it's unlikely that many people (perhaps even any) have spent as many hours as I have reading the content of the article and it's links (and links from links etc.), both current and previous. You've answered the "which", but I'm not clear on the "why". At it's core it seems to be a study into the biodegradability of heavy oil, using two microbial consortia and an oleophilic nitrogen-phosphorus fertilizer. I understand that the fertilizer happens to be S-200 but I'm not clear on why that makes it notable. Specifically what is it about those references that make it notable? A plain and simple factual response that assumes good faith would be appreciated, rather than one that remarks on assumptions of bad faith motivations such as frivolity and mean-spiritedness. Ha! (talk) 12:37, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * If you are not clear on why these references make it notable, please read WP:Notability. The very first line there reads "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." This is exactly what we have here. NoCal100 (talk) 13:47, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep per NoCal100, though the article either needs to be renamed or re-written to make it clear that S-200 and Oil gone Easy refer to the same thing. Perhaps S-200 (chemical) or something. Matt Deres (talk) 03:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  —Ha! (talk) 04:59, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree about the renaming and have made a similar comment on the Talk page of the article. I'd do it myself now, but I don;t want to screw up the AfD. NoCal100 (talk) 05:14, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * See what I wrote there. Uncle G (talk) 05:28, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, notable subject discussed in reliable sources. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:20, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: notable per significant coverage in one reliable source and further references to that coverage in additional sources. Ha! (talk) 19:48, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. There's no coverage in reliable secondary sources at all, but the primary peer-reviewed publications are probably enough. Fences and windows (talk) 22:12, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The references of the article has been strengthened. This one can survive. Alexius08 (talk) 03:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I think the refs show this to be a major product. The low quality article submitted before uncle G started remediation on it  shows that COI, paid or unpaid, does not necessarily produce good articles. DGG (talk) 04:56, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable given the sources cited and it's been sufficiently reformed from its initial COI version. --Cybercobra (talk) 08:54, 15 June 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.