Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Madagascar Oil


 * 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) Esquivalience t 03:05, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Madagascar Oil

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Outside of existing issues of poor quality article, not quite neutral, COI/SPA editing, complete lack of references, this also to me does not seem to meet notability. There's very little in mainstream press - all is either arcane financial or industry (oil) stuff. This is the closest I could get, the financial section of the Mail about a deal earlier this year: http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/investing/article-3043592/SMALL-CAP-MOVERS-Shares-Madagascar-Oil-double-growing-optimism-oilers-lifts-AIM.html Whilst trying to apply notability criteria to this and comparing to industry peers, this company felt considerably smaller and less notable than others. For example it's the only entry in the oil companies of madagascar category, so I looked at aussie companies and they dwarfed this company by revenue, suggesting this company is small and not notable unless there is something specific which makes it so, and I can't see that anywhere. Rayman60 (talk) 16:02, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 15 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete as mentioned above as not only is this nearly even speedy material, none of it even suggests minimally satisfying notability guidelines. SwisterTwister   talk  08:51, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. I agree about COI editing, the bad state of the article, lack of references etc. However, as it has been established in Afd cases before, the size of the company is not an argument for notability, so this comparison with aussi companies is irrelevant. Also, for GNG, not necessarily the mainstream media is needed. Also industry-focused sources may satisfy GNG if the source is independent and reliable and provids significant coverage. There are that kind of sources available. Also, there are articles in Reuters, Financial Times , The Telegraph , also probably BBC , Bloomberg , local newspapers L'Express de Madagascar , Madagascar Tribune . So, there is enough mainstream coverage. Beagel (talk) 18:19, 15 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep – Passes WP:CORPDEPTH with ease, per a review of available sources, including those listed above and those recently added to the article. Also, the article was copy edited/cleaned up after the time of this nomination (diff), and has been heavily copy edited thereafter. North America1000 21:24, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep current condition has no sense of an afd candidate JarrahTree 01:10, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - The article has been worked on by Northamerica1000 and Beagel who have clearly demonstrated that it is a notable company that passes WP:CORPDEPTH, with plenty of coverage in reliable sources. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:35, 17 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep the poor state of an article is usually not a valid reason for deletion. Subject of the article meet WP:CORPDEPTH. Many thanks to North America for the improvement. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 07:23, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep the article as it passes WP:CORPDEPTH. The article has been improved by Northamerica1000 and Beagel which shows that the article is about a notable company. Ayub 407 talk 17:13, 20 December 2015 (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.