Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/It's more than just oil. It's liquid engineering.

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 merge to Castrol#Advertising. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:35, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's more than just oil. It's liquid engineering.

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Speedy contested. Non-notable advertising slogan. Of course there's 1,000,000 sources, the company has paid to put it in ads.--Wtshymanski (talk) 19:32, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

merge into Castrol. The page has other content about Castrol's ad campaign. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:18, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
merge or delete. I supported the existing merge nom on its talkpage before it headed to afd, but the rationale would work just as well for deletion if there is nothing others think is salvageable. DMacks (talk) 20:24, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Castrol, where this obviously belongs. No evidence for independent notability. / edg ☺ ☭ 21:15, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Castrol#Advertising. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:55, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Definitely a strong merge case considering the lack of content or reliable sourcing to warrant its own standalone article. Mkdw ^talk 06:37, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by nominator - merge would be good, but do we even need to keep the redirect? It's not like it's Where's the beef?. --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:55, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to see the redirect intact to pervert further attempts at creation consider this has already gone to an AfD. Also, the article will have a relatively good sized section after the merge which a redirect would specifically be directed at. I'm not hugely opposed but I think in the long term it would be suitable. Mkdw ^talk 03:40, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:55, 30 January 2013 (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.