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. (non-admin closure) Erik9 (talk) 01:17, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Selling Away[edit]

Selling Away (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Basically an essay that, to quote a CSD criterium, "would require a complete rewrite to become encyclopedic". Delete per WP:NOTTEXTBOOK. Yintaɳ  21:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep While I agree the article is a mess and needs a fair amount of attention, I believe there is some solid core material there that is worth preserving. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep That the article is in poor shape is a call to fix it, not delete it. The subject is notable and verifiable. Drawn Some (talk) 21:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the Keep votes ;) In any regard, while I may be unemployed right now, I don't have the ability to go to Wiki U., the MOS pages alone would take days to read, so can one of you either give me a few things to improve? thx Chris R —Preceding unsigned comment added by CRoetzer (talk • contribs) 22:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC) And I just picked up on the signature stamp button on the tool bar! --CRoetzer (talk) 22:48, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did some minor cleanup. The article will also have to be moved for capitalization if nothing else. I can assist further with style if it survives the AfD but it would be helpful for you to have more references to verify much of the information. Drawn Some (talk) 23:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Base article seems solid enough but it's in desperate need of cleaning, sourcing and wikifying. Eddie.willers (talk) 01:11, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to Drawn Some for some cleaning up, I too went back and streamlined it more based upon feedback. I'm not as qualified as the wiki experts so without removing content, feel free to help! --CRoetzer (talk) 02:22, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, but continue cleanup. Is Investopedia a reliable source? Fences and windows (talk) 03:45, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Seems a notable and verifiable explanation of a jargon phrase whose meaning is not instantly obvious. Should move as noted by several above. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:39, 13 May 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.