Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bardahl

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 of the debate was keep and cleanup. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bardahl

--cholmes75 (chit chat) 19:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC) Spam JennyRad 00:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete or Expand OTAKU 00:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete w/o prejudice to recreation as an article that establishes notability, if there is any here. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 00:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep only if expanded seems like a somewhat notable company but the current article is totally useless. Opabinia regalis 00:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete No evidence of being a notable brand name. --Ed (Edgar181) 01:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, advertising. --Terence Ong 02:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete for now, but the company deserves a real article. —Mets501talk 06:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, doesn't appear to be a notable brand. Open to evidence suggesting otherwise, but there is none in the article and google is no help beyond the official site listed here. - Motor (talk) 10:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. A minimal stub, but it does convey information. The brand had its heyday more than twenty years ago, but it is notable. Smerdis of Tlön 15:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. It definitely needs more info, but this company does (or did) seem notable. Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 19:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable product for previous market position, and likely future link for sports links (as I found with Mercury (automobile)) - 4 or 5 such mentions already exist elsewhere in Wikipedia. --Cedderstk 19:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Smerdis. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 19:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. There's no reason to delete an article simply because in the current form it is short, or we would delete a good half of articles presently on Wikipedia. Of course it should be expanded, thus the stub tag. The article certainly does not read like an advertisment - there are no glowing reviews of the supposed excellence of its products, nor is there even a list of them. In light of this, it is probably at least a little bit notable. It doesn't need to have changed history, or anything... Falcon 22:37, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Not an advert. --Ephilei 02:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I wish all corporate articles were this nice. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 19:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. The article has been expanded since it was nominated, and seems NPOV. TruthbringerToronto 04:26, 10 June 2006 (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.