Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oil and Gas Industry metering and control system


 * 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   no consensus. Flowerparty ☀ 01:13, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Oil and Gas Industry metering and control system

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Bit of a tagfest going on here. What's the purpose of the page anyway? Presumably, if someone cared a great deal, they could have done better than this incessantly messy page. Shouldn't be in an encyclopaedia in this form, I feel. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 18:14, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * And if you're wondering why I didn't just prod it: I guess that they might be room for an article about the topic, just not this one. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 18:42, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete with haste, so overloaded with jargon that it's impenetrable. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 23:23, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep per rescue. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 20:17, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep It is our editing policy to improve such articles, not delete them. Having looked at couple of sources upon instrumentation, the matter seems quite notable - such devices are used throught the world's oil and gas fields.  I have added a citation. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * As a seemingly knowledgeable person, can I ask you whether it's talking about a specific product here, or a general system that is used throughout the Oil and Gas Industry? The article could really do with some context, and I still have no idea where it fits into the encyclopaedia. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 16:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I have no particular knowledge of this field so I searched for information online. This is what you should have done before bringing this matter here - please see WP:BEFORE for details of the process.  As for your question, the article is talking in general terms, not about a specific product. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:20, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 20:21, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Article now has a reference and many more exist. I don't see any "jargon" in the article, it uses industry standard terms and the intended audience would have no difficulty in understanding the material. I've added a number of wikilinks but it could probably use a few more. Tothwolf (talk) 17:06, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as pointless fork, with heaps of unverified information on a subject that doesn't require this kind of iodsyncratic treatment. Eusebeus (talk) 17:20, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * What exactly is this a fork of? Tothwolf (talk) 17:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 22:36, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

This isn't simple.wikipedia.org and this is a technical topic. Tothwolf (talk) 04:07, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - not notable (not sure where others have looked, but google only shows 1 hit for "gas well metering system" and only 4 for it's suggested verion "gas well monitoring system". Also, appears to me to be original research, is more a of a comparison between the two systems rather than an article about a common system.      7   talk   02:57, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I would suggest trying a different search query as that one is not likely to get too many hits. Tothwolf (talk) 03:59, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Here are 4 more books from a quick Google books search
 * I provided my exact search query. You suggested I pick a different one saying it was likely not to get too many hits, which doesn't help me much considering I already described how few hits it got.  The query I used seems to be a reasonable name for the overall general topic the article is trying to address, but if you can suggest a better query then please do so (or please improve the article using what you find).  My comment about notability remains unchanged, as well as the other issues in the article.     7   talk   06:34, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * ...and that query is so restrictive that it obviously turns up nearly nothing about this topic. I'm not sure what a better "generic name" for this should be but the current article name/title does avoid brand specific names/terms, so it works for now. Tothwolf (talk) 14:34, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I understand your point, and hope you'll understand mine when I keep my comment at Delete.    7   talk   14:38, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Keep, improve, merge, fix up. Per Colonel Warden  Chzz  ►  15:06, 3 June 2009 (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.