Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryder Scott (2nd nomination)


 * 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   delete. The Bushranger One ping only 06:53, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Ryder Scott Petroleum Consultants
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

This is promotional article for an oil consulting firm. Sources do not provide significant independent verification of notability. Restar32 (talk) 18:39, 18 February 2011 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:09, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete no claim of notability. Advertisement. MLA (talk) 10:33, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Weak delete (or fix). Since the last time it was listed, no independent reliable sources have been provided. In the meantime, Wikipedia has collectively raised their standards regarding sourcing. The company appears to be an important, albeit niche, player in the petroleum industry; there might actually be some decent reliable sources out there, but they're likely tucked away in industry publications like a Society of Petroleum Engineers newsletter or in specialized industry books; the kinds of thinks that only a specialist editor is likely to have easy access to. Personally, I'd rather have no article than a piece solely sourced by the subjects materials. Studerby (talk) 03:04, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: I agree it should have better sources. But as the main author of the article, I can assure you it is not promotional: I work for a competing company and have no interest in promoting Ryder Scott.  I was just trying to describe what this company and others like it do, in what I still think is an interesting (if minor) role in the industry.  As I said last time it was nominated for deletion, although few third parties are likely to report on Ryder Scott itself, their studies are quite frequently used in publications by oil companies and media.  For example, here and here and here and here. Anyway, I'm not really torn up about it either way.  TastyCakes (talk) 23:30, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete: the sources do not establish any kind of notability. Being "used in publications by oil companies" is routine business, not notability. Notability means significant coverage in proper news journals like WSJ. If this can't be found, delete the article. Perchloric (talk) 02:14, 4 March 2011 (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.