Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deepwater oil spill prevention


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 02:23, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Deepwater oil spill prevention

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Fails WP:NOTESSAY, WP:OR, WP:NPOV, and WP:V.  — fetch ·  comms   01:39, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom.  Enigma msg  01:54, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as unencyclopedic content. Article is clearly intended as an essay and would require a fundamental rewrite to become encyclopedic. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:17, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as article is an essay. Faults/mistakes have been covered in the main article. Netalarm talk 06:54, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Per above. Shadowjams (talk) 08:29, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I have re-written the article to avoid what might have been read as my personal opinion, or non-neutral point of view. I've also read the WP-OR and WP-V pages, and I'm not sure what you are objecting to here. I certainly don't consider myself an original researcher in this field, but I do have a good knowledge of general principles of engineering, like redundancy in design. The article is intended as a starting point, and an invitation for an engineer with more expertise in this field to add more detail and more references. I see my role as helping such an expert make the explanation more understandable to the public.

Netalarm: By "main article" I assume you mean Deepwater Horizon oil spill. My intent here is not to repeat what is said there on faults/mistakes, but there may be some overlap just to make the article self contained. I definitely want to avoid politics in this article, and keep it focused on technology and on what will be useful in future drilling.

We really need an article like this, because it is so difficult to find good technical information on this topic suitable for a non-expert audience. It should not require a degree in engineering. --Dave (talk) 09:48, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge with Offshore drilling and leave as a redirect. The verifiable content from this article would improve, what I would percieve to be, the main article.  Movementarian (Talk) 09:54, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep as rewritten. Movementarian (Talk) 14:25, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

The article Offshore drilling is all about history and other non-technical issues. We need an article focused on technology. Combining the two will make it too long. I expect that this technology article will grow to where we might want to split it into subtopics, like surface technologies and underwater technologies. We might even want to add cleanup technologies and make a third article.

--Dave (talk) 13:40, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Hold. If this article is about oil spill prevention, the introduction should reference numerous oil spills and why prevention is important. If it is about technology, it needs to be renamed. I vote to give it up to a week to see how the article develops and then reassess at that time. USchick (talk) 16:32, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Rename I think there is enough material about the technical aspects of blowout prevention and mitigation to justify a new article. Off the top of my head I think "Offshore drilling disaster prevention and response" would be a better title.  Using "Deepwater" as a single word in the title may lead people to believe it's specifically about the Deepwater Horizon incident.  It could probably benefit from some Montara material.  And a rewrite, it still seems essay-ish to me.  Thundermaker (talk) 16:49, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Hold is fine with me. If we don't see some interest within a week, I'll delete it myself.

The article should definitely be on technology, not a survey of oil spills. Rename is OK. How about "Offshore oil spill prevention". I don't want to make the scope too broad. "drilling disaster" might include a wide range of safety problems on the rig, having nothing to do with oil spill prevention. "response" might include cleanup technologies, which really should be another article.

I'm still not clear on what is "essay-ish", but perhaps some additional contributors will iron out these problems. I've posted an invitation in the talk page of Deepwater Horizon oil spill.

--Dave (talk) 17:16, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Hold -- give it a week to develop with Under construction flag, & reassess at that time. Rename at once -- Deepwater is too specific and potentially confusing: prefer Offshore oil spill prevention and response, or some such.  Could definitely use article, to be summarized in very brief space devoted to Oil_spill and generic (not oil-specific) articles on Spill_containment and Dispersant, to round up summary of various articles in Category: Oil spill remediation technologies too detailed for the above. Significant amount of  organizational work and summary edit work involved, Dave, but those articles' references should be a pointer in the right direction to escaping from essay style.  Good idea, I think, and good luck recruiting more qualified technical editors.  Perhaps posting a help request at WikiProject_Engineering would be a good next step. Paulscrawl (talk) 18:49, 10 June 2010 (UTC)  From that Project page: why not drop User:Andyminicooper a line? Paulscrawl (talk) 21:39, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * * Make that: Move raw draft outline to User sandbox and Delete -- fundamental rethink and rewrite is in fact required, as is collaboration if this is to be encyclopedic. Raw outline still reads like one well-meaning man's all-embracing attempt at finding solutions to a monumental problem, an impression furthered by his deletion of all feedback on his Talk page.  Let him work it out in his sandbox on his own until article ready for prime time. Paulscrawl (talk) 07:51, 12 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh my gosh!! Sorry for the delete on my talk page.  It is now restored.  It looked like just a heads up, pointing me to the notice that was already on the article, so I deleted it, trying to make room for some actual discussion.  Let's at least assume good faith here.  Paul, I very much appreciate your suggestions above, and I hope you will re-consider,  I had already contacted the individual you suggested, and I am now following up on lots of material at a link he gave me.  Just haven't had time to update the article.  I have also invited anyone in the Engineering Project to help out.  Let's stick to the original plan.  If there isn't substantial improvement in a week, I'll delete the article myself.--Dave (talk) 20:31, 12 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, Dave -- sorry to mind read. My bold advice then: bottom line: aim for WP:IDEALSTUB status ASAP, this weekend. All else can wait.  Replace everything, for now.  That's job #1, I would think.  Stubs can hang for a long time, and this article will take more than a week.  You might decide exactly where to have collaborative discussion -- here, your Talk page, or, I would think best, article Discussion page.  Might copy a few select things from here to there under well-named sections to get the ball rolling.  Use your sandbox for its intended purpose - jotting ideas, refs, outlines, brain farts, etc. not needed for public display or feedback: most everything in article & current article Discussion page can go there for now while you replace current content with suitable Stub article, in proper encyclopedic style, however brief.  Glance at my messy personal workspace for inspiration -- through everything in there.  Also, it might be more fruitful of offers from competent collaborators to add some appropriate "help!" Category to article.  I took the liberty of adding Category:Engineering articles needing expert attention -- if this was not proper, perhaps another editor here could please revise or revert.   I'm sure a more experienced editor can help with those choices.  I've taken two articles from deletion to sandbox back to life using these strategies.  Good luck and let me know if I can help -- or hinder -- your work any further. ;>  Paulscrawl (talk) 01:03, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I like your advice, Paul, every word of it. I've added the stub template, and deleted the sections that don't yet have verifiable references.  The parts I've left are still not complete, but perhaps far enough along that they belong in the stub article.  Delete whatever else you feel is appropriate.  I've got it all in my sandbox.  As for the collaborative discussions, I agree, the article Discussion page would be best.  I would recommend that we supplement that with discussions on the user pages for topics that are far from complete, perhaps with a brief summary on the main Discussion page, and a link to the user pages.  That will keep the main Discussion page to a manageable size.  As for comments on stuff in my user space, if it is linked in the article or its Discussion page, I welcome comments in my user space.  --Dave (talk) 15:48, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Great! I'm done here, then; see article Discussion page from here on out. Looking better already. Paulscrawl (talk) 19:45, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Do Not Delete! Contains great info. misplaced comment from IP user


 * Hold -- After reading WP:DEL, I don't see that NPOV and WP:NOTESSAY violations are valid reasons to delete an article. It should be possible to rewrite the article rather than delete it.  For the WP:V problems, WP:DEL says that there should be a thorough search for references before deciding that the article should be deleted.  I don't see evidence here that a thorough search has been done.  As far as WP:OR is concerned, if sufficient references are found for the article, then the problematic and still-unreferenced statements can be removed from the article. As far as the article title, I agree with Thundermaker that the title should include something like "response" or "mitigation", since the article content goes beyond prevention. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 04:40, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:DEL includes, as a reason for deletion, "any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia", which links to WP:NOT (the list of what Wikipedia is not). Among the forms of unencyclopedic content listed there are "primary (original) research" and "personal essays" (see WP:NOTESSAY).  The test is generally that if fixing the page to make it encyclopedic would take as much, or more, work than starting the page from scratch, it should be deleted as unencyclopedic content. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:49, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for the info on how WP:NOTESSAY relates to WP:DEL. I still think that the article should be given a chance for cleanup and then be reassessed. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 04:40, 12 June 2010 (UTC)



Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 08:09, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep. The article has undergone an entire transformation since the AFD was initiated and the problems enumerated above seemed to have been resolved.-- Pink Bull  20:48, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * In its current state, seems like keep. &mdash; Timneu22 · &#32; talk 12:20, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep No longer appears to an essay. Edgepedia (talk) 12:32, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep as rewritten. Movementarian (Talk) 14:25, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Article has been renamed and improved. Thundermaker (talk) 20:21, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep but rename "Offshore oil spill prevention and response" MichaelWestbrook (talk) 02:24, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep -- and renamed, per suggestions here and on Talk page, where future developments of the article are outlined. Thank you all for your invaluable input and support. Who will be kind enough to remove that AFD template?  Paulscrawl (talk) 11:53, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep -- I like Paul's new outline, putting the technology into a broader context. I still think the article should help answer the question "Can offshore drilling be made safe?", not by presenting one answer (that was never my intention), but by providing enough understanding of the relevant technologies and human factors that a reader can make up their own mind. --Dave (talk) 12:54, 18 June 2010 (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.