Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oil Can Henry's

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The result was speedy keep , nomination withdrawn. Non-admin closure. MuZemike 22:38, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oil Can Henry's[edit]

Appears to be Vanispamcruftisement; one of the major contributors is affiliated with the company, judging by the username (User:Oilcanmike17) and its contribution history. Additionally there is no indication of notability, nor did a quick google search pull up any matches besides the company home page and the wikipedia article. Nominating for deletion rather than CSD because it at least seems to be a widespread chain; perhaps someone with the inclination to do so could save it. McJeff (talk) 00:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, and suggest withdrawal of nomination - As to the first contention, though likely a COI editor, their work on the article that has actually remained (that is not reverted by others) is the addition of the infobox, hardly a problem. Next, from the AFD instructions: If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion. Thus, the last statement made in the nomination is contrary to that goal and stretches AGF. As to the last contention yet addressed, the lack of sources to indicate notability, I have to question the veracity of that search, or to say, did the nominator following the AFD instructions: When nominating an article for deletion due to sourcing concerns, make a good-faith attempt to confirm that such sources aren't likely to exist. A Google search of "oil can henry's" gives you 20,000+ hits, which alone should tell you something about the likeliness of sources existing. I could understand if you get 100, but if there are more than 1,000 this should be a decent indicator that sources may exist. More telling though is if you go through the Google results, as I did. There is a book within the first 100 results that has more than a page on the company. A book that is independent of the company. Further searches through likely source areas (here a business, so a search of the Business Journal franchise of newspapers is in order) turns up 6 articles that have coverage of the company and a search of the newspaper for where the company is based (The Oregonian) comes up with 88 hits. Then with non-free searches, the same phrase gets 235 hits from an "all news" search that is nationwide for newspapers and magazines, though 88 of those would be duplicates. Now these all may not provide substantial coverage in each case, but it should give serious pause before nominating for deletion. Perhaps a notability tag next time. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:47, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't appreciate the condescending tone, but I do appreciate the work. Nomination withdrawn, however, I advise Aboutmovies to read up on AGF. McJeff (talk) 10:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:18, 20 February 2009 (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.