Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Schlumberger Business Consulting


 * 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   merge to Schlumberger. Cirt (talk) 16:51, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Schlumberger Business Consulting

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

fails WP:CORP. unreferenced article that looks like something from their website. hardly any third party coverage. LibStar (talk) 00:35, 28 January 2010 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 00:40, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. I added some references. – Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:22, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  – Eastmain (talk • contribs)  02:22, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions.  – Eastmain (talk • contribs)  03:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. The Forbes story would appear to be the only source that's both reliable, and not of limited interest and circulation.  The rest would appear to be various white papers from industry groups and the like.  - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:22, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per Smerdis' assessment of the sources. Does not pass WP:CORP. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  17:40, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. I think the company passes the general notability guideline. The specialized publications (Arabian Oil & Gas and Upstream (newspaper)) cited as references in the article  are both reliable sources. – Eastmain (talk • contribs)  23:37, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Merge to Schlumberger. The company is pretty obviously notable, and the consulting arm is a significant part of the company.--Michig (talk) 07:03, 5 February 2010 (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.