Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ExxonMobil in Indonesia
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 no consensus to delete, default to keep. Several poor reasons to keep or delete were given on either side. Sandstein 21:30, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] ExxonMobil in Indonesia
This may warrant merging into the ExxonMobil article, but I am not certain it is notable enough to warrant its own WP article Ecoleetage (talk) 01:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Merge - into ExxonMobil. asenine say what? 06:27, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete as WP:COATRACK and failing WP:NPOV. Stifle (talk) 20:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - the page certainly needs work but the subject is significant and sufficiently encyclopaedic. TerriersFan (talk) 18:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 02:54, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. While I don't think every multinational company's operations in every country are notable, ExxonMobil's operations in Indonesia, particularly Aceh, have received significant attention to where this is a notable subtopic. Yes, this is a controversial topic, and it is not just ExxonMobil that has been implicated, but the cases shown do relate to the company and have received coverage. The article may need a WP:NPOV cleanup, but bias is not by itself a reason for deletion. It certainly does not fall under the category of coatrack, although it may violate undue weight. A retitle could fix that more easily than a rewrite to be a business gazetteer profile, but both alternatives may be considered. --Dhartung | Talk 06:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. Will require an urgent clean up.--Rockybiggs (talk) 15:01, 21 May 2008 (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.
