Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oil Industry Safety Directorate


 * 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The result was withdrawn. --Pontificalibus (talk) 08:43, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Oil Industry Safety Directorate

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Previously PRODed article with deletion rationale: ''This article has been calling for help for over a year, it is merely a list of 110 guideline headings for oil companies that have to work in India. There is no mention of what these guidelines say, all we have is a list of 110 headings. It was endorsed by another user by saying: Delete, or stubify, or smerge into India energy law''. However, it was DEPRODed by anon editor with an edit summary: lame del rationale, it's a Directorate, pass N. However, the article in its current stage does not establish notability. Also, by my understanding it also violates WP:NOTDIRECTORY. The issue is also discussed at the article's talk page. Beagel (talk) 20:59, 9 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep as clearly notable. See for example, ,  and some 900 other hits on Google Books.  "AFD is not cleanup".  Cusop Dingle (talk) 21:20, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Just mentioning, yes, but this is not enough for WP:CORP. The question is if the Oil Industry Safety Directorate "has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources"? These sources does not qualify it as "subject of significant coverage". Beagel (talk) 21:48, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That is indeed the question. It was not the question raised in the nomination, though.  Is it clear than none of the over 900 references in published books is significant.  Has anyone checked?  Cusop Dingle (talk) 07:18, 10 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - The sources provided by Cusop Dingle do signify notability, as the sections in the books are specifically about the OISD. I have boldly removed the list of standards which did not add any encyclopedic value to the article. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 11:59, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Cusop Dingle provided three sources–non of them could be called as 'sections'. The first one included one sentence paragraph in the listing of the bodies dealing with oil industry. One sentence for 270 pages is not significant coverage. Second source mentions OIDS once saying that it assists Safety Council and lists its four key activities. One mentioning for 504 pages is again probably not a significant coverage. The third source also mentions it once in one sentence, which is not significant coverage. Beagel (talk) 21:14, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 10 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Looks notable and has references .Why delete it.Shyamsunder (talk) 20:47, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Currently the article does not have any references, except the open page of the OISD website which is really not a reference. Beagel (talk) 20:59, 10 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - Added this reference to the article:
 * — Northamerica1000(talk) 14:30, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * — Northamerica1000(talk) 14:30, 11 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:HEY. I amended the Prod because I thought it could be merged or improved to standard.  It's a government agency in one of the two largest nations on earth. I think, with the work done by User:Northamerica1000, that it's been rescued.  Good job. Bearian (talk) 21:20, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Withdrawn my nomination. I would like to thank User:Northamerica1000 for his/her work for bringing this article in line with Wikipedia's standards. Beagel (talk) 09:03, 14 March 2012 (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.