Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oilily

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus; kept. --Canderson7 15:16, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Oilily
POV marketing swill. would be good to have an article on Oilily, but this isn't it. should be thwacked until a real article is attempted. SaltyPig 11:49, 28 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep with information about the actual store rather than a jumble of obscure and useless data from the store's website Drdisque 07:38, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
 * okay, who's going to do that? i saw about 1 sentence that wasn't marketing dreck. it's not like anything's lost by deleting the page. sometimes i think these votes for deletion are viewed as though it's the last chance for the entire future of an article. the best future for this article might be to zap it so that somebody actually starts it right one day. not jamming on you personally, but i wonder what the value is in leaving up some of these hack pages. the vote for deletion is voting to delete this article, not any article that might be made about the subject later. if you can fill me in, please do. thanks. this general "keep everything possible" flavor i've noticed lately confuses me. it seems to presume that creating a page is difficult, as though we're fortunate that somebody happened by one day and left us these pieces of litter. strange (IMO). SaltyPig 08:03, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Copyvio tagged n' reported. BTW POV is not a valid reason to delete Ryan Norton T 15:33, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
 * re POV, i'm aware of that claim and disagree. SaltyPig 22:15, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Its only valid if it is not possible to make the article NPOV for some reason (like List of ethnic stereotypes). In this case its just a company, so it would be fairly easy to rework it from a NPOV Ryan Norton T 22:18, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
 * again, i'm aware of that claim, and i disagree. if you'd like to argue it, point me to the correct spot to let fly. i'm shocked by this VfD procedure. horrible! i gather we're not supposed to ramble too much here though. feel free to use my talk page if interested. SaltyPig 22:29, 28 August 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.