Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Central oil storage

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. postdlf (talk) 15:36, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Central oil storage[edit]

Central oil storage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is 6 years old and there's not a single citation. In addition, the author refers to himself and to his/her own opinions Pishcal (talk) 18:11, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The subject must exist in some form, maybe under a different term. The article seems to be about communal storage facilities for fuel for heating or generating power, which is not the same as a "communal heating system" claimed in the article. And it seems to be one persons opinion about them in one select area of Britain. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:38, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:06, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I found one brief mention of "communal storage facilities" in a UK government document (which is repeated in other government sites and documents), but that hardly supports a standalone article. Clarityfiend (talk) 13:13, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: No prejudice against recreation if sources turn up, but as of right now it's an essay. I trimmed some of the heavy OR bits, but this fails the GNG. Nha Trang 18:08, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The topic is notable. See Heating Services in Buildings for example. Per our editing policy, the age and current state of the article is unimportant and not a reason to delete. Andrew (talk) 13:00, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Meets WP:GNG. I have performed some copy editing to address concerns about the article. Source examples include:
 – NorthAmerica1000 18:58, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per above, obviously a real thing. Bryce (talk) 01:55, 22 October 2014 (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.