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. Comments make it clear.. Tone 22:15, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SONIDEP[edit]

Article about a corporation that does not explain why it is notable or even list notable contributions ←Signed:→Mr. E. Sánchez ^{Get to know me!} / _{Talk to me!}←at≈:→ 20:33, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bad Faith Nomination User above nominated article for speedy deletion within a minute of its creation, as he apparently does with numerous articles, instead of waiting for even the first version of the article assess notability, etc. As the creator, I've had to drop everything to keep it from being wrongfully speedy deleted and haven't gotten beyond even the first edit. In between head thumps I might add third part sources within the next few minutes, but frankly this kind of bad behavior makes one longtime contributor want to ditch this entire thing. T L Miles (talk) 20:41, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The organisation which controls the oil of any country, especially an oil producing country such as Niger, is inherently notable. I don't have to google to know that. Dr.K. logos 20:45, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A few templates are available to instruct editors to hold off on deleting articles, with the inclusion of ((hangon)), ((underconstruction)), and ((inuse)). A properly-formed explanation on the talk page of an article nominated for speedy deletion will convince an administrator to wait and not delete. The speed of the nomination, IMHO, does not exactly matter, as an article should be introduced into the article namespace with already enough information to keep it afloat awhile. Otherwise, userfication is always an option. ←Signed:→Mr. E. Sánchez ^{Get to know me!} / _{Talk to me!}←at≈:→ 20:45, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article stub states pretty clearly that the subject is the state-run petroleum marketing company of the nation of Niger, which is a pretty obvious assertion of notability. A7 was rightly refused, although the remarks on ESanchez013's talk page aren't exactly WP:CIVIL. A Google search, once you wade past the business directory stuff, includes papers on SONIDEP from the World Bank, IMF and WTO, so I'd say it's safe to say there are reliable sources for this article. Rklear (talk) 21:22, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as above. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 21:32, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Clearly notable state-owned petroleum distribution company of Niger. Documented in sources, several of which I have now added to the article. Cool3 (talk) 22:05, 27 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.