Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Atwood Oceanics


 * 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. czar 13:27, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Atwood Oceanics

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

There is nothing about this company from notable sources except for the fact that it was bought out. Most of the article is self-cited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikieditor600 (talk • contribs) 19:34, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:53, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:53, 12 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep As WP:LISTED implies, a formerly public company like this has lots of sources that demonstrate notability, such as and others easily found with a DuckDuckGo search. UnitedStatesian (talk) 20:42, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - To expand on the above, enough results also from newspapers.com which shows that this company passes WP:SIGCOV. Josalm64rc (talk) 07:13, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * This account has received a checkuser block, so I've struck the vote Nosebagbear (talk) 21:12, 19 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete - does not meet WP:COMPANY, has not "been the subject of significant coverage" - of the three references, one is to a stock report, one about an acquisition and one about the founder's death = no in depth coverage per WP:CORPDEPTH - therefore, delete - Epinoia (talk) 17:13, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * How is a long stock report dedicated to the company (one of many such reports) not significant, in-depth coverage? UnitedStatesian (talk) 17:43, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * - it's not media coverage and the WP:ORGCRITE guideline says, "there must be multiple of such qualifying sources" - a stock report merely confirms that the company exists, it does not establish notability - Epinoia (talk) 21:42, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Even though the guideline says nothing about "media", there are detailed articles from Bloomberg here and here; Houston Chronicle here; much other media coverage during the ~20 years this multi-billion-dollar company was public. UnitedStatesian (talk) 05:11, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting, 1 !vote struck for a checkuser block

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 21:12, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep As per WP:NCORP guidelines, references such as analyst reports and research reports meet the criteria for establishing notability. Of course it can be very difficult to find a link to one of these reports as they are often behind (very expensive) paywalls. This link is to an analyst report (for sale) prepared by GlobalData. This second link from Zacks also meets the criteria. Topic meets GNG and WP:NCORP.  HighKing++ 16:44, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep: satisfies WP:NORG per review of available sources. --K.e.coffman (talk) 16:07, 24 August 2019 (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.