Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laredo Petroleum


 * 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.  Sandstein  09:50, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Laredo Petroleum

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Apparently non-notable company, see article talk page for more details. Also, page is poorly done and starting over from scratch is best. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)  01:36, 28 December 2013 (UTC) Update: Nominator is now neutral, see below
 * Delete as nominator without prejudice against a decently-written, decently-referenced article that clearly indicates that this company meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines if and when the company becomes notable, or immediately if the company is notable. davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  01:39, 28 December 2013 (UTC) Update As a company with a $3.5B+ stock-market value, it is somewhat likely that the company meets Wikipedia's notability requirements even if the article does not clearly demonstrate that it does.  Changing to "neutral, without opposition to a soft deletion/userfication as with an expired PROD" should the article still not demonstrate the company's notability before the end of the discussion period.  I recommend against closing this as "keep" as that would prevent another AFD any time soon.  If it does close as "keep" without significant improvement, I recommend that the closing admin either explicitly say "keep, no prejudice against another AFD soon" or summarize the arguments in this discussion that suggest this should close as a "full keep."  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  00:16, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 04:34, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 04:34, 28 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - Now has RS refs. Is on the NYSE which makes it notable almost by definition. VMS Mosaic (talk) 06:02, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Being on the NYSE does not "make it notable almost by definition." Being in the Fortune 500 or S&P 500, almost certainly, being in the mid-cap S&P 400 quite likely, but not being in the NYSE.  However, I will reread the article before the week is out and come back here and comment on it if my opinion changes.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  07:06, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, that was an over statement. Added refs from the WSJ, etc. VMS Mosaic (talk) 08:10, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * After reading WP:LISTED, it appears it was at least a little less of an overstatement than I first thought, "given the very high likelihood that a publicly traded company is actually notable". VMS Mosaic (talk) 06:57, 2 January 2014 (UTC)


 * NOTE: This article is one of around 62 mass produced from stock exchange listings. All either PRODed now, or those that have run their 7 days at AfD have been deleted. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:50, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * No doubt many if not most needed deleted if no was was willing and/or could find notable refs, but I'm not sure what if anything that has to do with this particular article being notable? Shouldn't it stand or fall on its own notability? FWIW, I agreed above that being on the NYSE was not enough. VMS Mosaic (talk) 04:40, 31 December 2013 (UTC)


 * In theory  yes, but because they  have identical  formats and identical  issues we could in  fact  have listed all  62 articles on  one AfD. However, as they  appear to  be created by  differents Wikipedia accounts, and investigation  will yake place to  establish  if they  were created by  the same person. hence separate AfDs. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:51, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not suggesting the AFD was wrong, but how the article came to be should have no bearing on its future if it is capable of being a standalone article. How does a 62 article AFD work where some pass and some fail? Seems like the closing admin could be faced with a major mess, not to mention the major confusion on who wants what to happen to which. I understand if no one steps up to the plate to 'fix' an article out of a group created by a single editor, but once someone(s) step(s) up for an article, then everything changes. That's my only point; that the article should no longer be treated as part of a group. FWIW, I had never heard of this company before I saw the AFD (I'm not in that industry). VMS Mosaic (talk) 09:25, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I can't say why Kudpung chose to announce that this was one of dozens of similar articles, but I can see two reasons why having such a statement in an AFD is helpful to the encyclopedia: 1) it invites other editors to look through this editor's contributions and/or ask for the list of the dozens of articles then try to identify articles on that list which are on topics that are notable and beef up/rescue them and/or state their opinion regarding deletion of these articles, and 2) it invites the same editors to endorse or state their own opinion regarding deletion of articles on topics that they do not believe are notable or which they are unsure of the notability of.  I have already taken on the task of improving one article on the list about a company that I believe is notable.  I may let the prod expire and ask for userfication if I can't get it in good shape before its week is out. davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  00:06, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Possibly off topic for an AfD, but  this is one of over 60 articles created (supposedly) by  a group  of 32 accounts working  in  concert  under the auspices of an educational  project. They  have all  received appropriate CSD/PROD/AfD messages on  their talk  pages and if as a group they  can't  get  their heads together to  understand why  the articles they  are producing  are inapropriate, then it's not  up  to  regular editors to  clean up  their mess for them. As an online ambassador, I  would be willing  to  encourage them  to  understand, but  I'm  not  going  to  force such  articles into  notability  for them. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:13, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * A point of clarity, or perhaps a point of confusion on my part: It's my understanding that notability belongs to the subject, not the article (that is, the subject's notability exists or does not exist even before the article is created, and a notable subject's notability doesn't disappear if the article is deleted for whatever reason, e.g. copyright violation).  However, the article must demonstrate that the subject is notable by using reliable sources, etc. or other editors are free to assume, perhaps incorrectly, that the topic is not notable. Did I get this right or have I been doing it wrong all of these years?  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  03:08, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, I took a good look at Notability (organizations and companies) and have little doubt this article now meets notability per the guideline. I never suggested any regular editors had to clean up anyone's mess or that you needed to worry about forcing the article into notability.  My only point is that a "regular editor" volunteered to clean up one part of the mess and "forced" this article into notability.  If you believe it still does not pass Notability (organizations and companies), please cite the relevant part of that guideline so that I can attempt to address the issue. VMS Mosaic (talk) 06:51, 2 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. Appears to have sufficient singificance for an article. Google News archive would likely be the best way of finding coverage here if it wasn't down. Highbeam gives enough results to indicate that a well-sourced article is possible here. --Michig (talk) 07:42, 4 January 2014 (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.