Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Badak gas field

General comments on gas field notability and deletions
In researching sources for james.folsom's many gas field PRODs, I've noted some things that maybe helpful in the future:

Size:
 * ≥1 trillion cubic feet is huge.
 * A field this size has a 90% of having at least one reliable source establishing notability. One way to look at this: the current wellhead natural gas price is on the order of magnitude of $2.50 per 1000 cu.ft; liquified natural gas at the terminal is about $7.50 per 1000 cu.ft. Note that these prices fluctuate and there are important geographic differences. Still an order-of-magnitude calculation indicates we're looking at >$1 billion worth of gas in today's dollars
 * 100 billion to 999,999,999 cu. ft:
 * Notability can vary with the factors listed further down
 * <100 billion cu. ft.
 * notability unlikely

Sources: Except for super fields, I've found most sources using Google Scholar and the Wikipedia Library.
 * Unfortunately many geology journal articles are pay-walled but I want to get the Wikipedia Library to include these journals.
 * Results I can't access may technically establish notability but if an abstract doesn't have enough info to support a stub, I won't personally claim notability
 * I have no problems citing paywalled articles I can see even if others can't
 * I'm happy to create a print-to-PDF file and email it to other editors if they have questions.

Searching:
 * Foreign languages, especially those that don't use the Roman alphabet, may involve multiple names. Example: the huge, now-depleted East-Tarkosalinskoye gas field has multiple names:
 * восточно-таркосалинскго and East-Tarkosalinskoye gas field
 * Even then, you may get other results looking for "East-Tarkosalinskye"


 * The links in the AfD notice produce searches with these searches
 * Google Books
 * Google News
 * Google Scholar
 * Free images
 * "WP refs"
 * JSTOR
 * Wikipedia Library
 * You need to sign up for Wikipedia Library access and then access to individual resources and databases. I think (but I'm not sure) that you may just get results for those collections you've registered for. I'm registered for most.
 * You need to sign up for Wikipedia Library access and then access to individual resources and databases. I think (but I'm not sure) that you may just get results for those collections you've registered for. I'm registered for most.


 * Often those pre-canned searches in the AfD template miss things.
 * Over time, I've seen Google get weirder. For instance, it may return different results if you delete the " " term from the search; this was put in to exclude Wikipedia mirror sites. Yet the additional results that now turn up may not include any Wikipedia mirrors at all. I've seen this with other searches that include other exclusion terms . Go figure.
 * Decoupling  from the field's name may produce additional results:   or even just

Field's age:
 * See WP:RECENTISM. Even huge fields may not have good coverage (except paywalled journals) if they were developed before news media started putting stuff online.
 * Most coverage occurs when the field is discovered and first developed. Afterwards, it can be producing 100 billion cu.ft. annually for 15 years with no press coverage.

Location:
 * Onshore or offshore (see below)
 * location in a disputed territory (examples: Guyana and Venezuela, Ukraine and Russia)
 * The diplomatic or even military disputes generate media coverage
 * location in an area where people don't want drilling (many fracking projects in developed countries)

A disaster

Offshore New offshore fields cost hundreds of million dollars to develop.
 * The easy stuff was tapped decades ago; these new fields are either very deep deposits and/or in deep water.
 * One of the drilling rigs used to develop an offshore Cameroonian oilfield in shallow waters (by today's standards) cost $10,000/hour to rent with crew in 1977. That's probably $50,000 to $100,000 nowadays.
 * That rig was much less sophisticated and expensive than what's required today.

Money tends to generate notability
 * This is a common thread in any of the comments above.

The field by itself may generate little or no coverage but an associated facility might be well-covered
 * Pipelines: Fields in remote areas may require multi-billion dollar pipelines that get covered extensively even before getting blown up (Nordstream)
 * LNG (liquefied petroleum gas) plants cost hundreds or even billions of dollars. They get more coverage than the fields themselves.
 * Example:The Badak LNG plant is more notable than the gas field.
 * Large petrochemical complexes are sometimes built in conjunction with developing these fields. They employ more people and often outlast the gas fields.

Alternatives to deletion -- A. B. (talk • contribs •  global count)  00:28, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to more notable facilities such as pipelines, LNG plants or petrochemical plants.
 * Merge and redirect to a list article such as List of natural gas fields in Romania


 * Further comments:
 * Another place to look for references: other Wikipedias, especially the language version for the location of the field.
 * If there's not a link on the English Wikipedia to the corresponding article, try searching the other Wikipedia with the name of the field without the words . For instance, just " " on the Indonesian Wikipedia.
 * Sometimes the other Wikipedia's article may not have a reliable reference. The English Wikipedia is pickier than some of the other Wikipedias.


 * Google cache:
 * This seemingly disappeared from Google searches but you can still conjure it up:


 * Fields within fields:
 * Sometimes, we have an article about a gas field that is part of a bigger field or collection of fields. The bigger field may be more notable.
 * My personal opinion is that, as a general rule, Wikipedia would do well to contain the same content within fewer articles. Consider merging the smaller field into the larger field's article.
 * This reduces the number of articles editors have to watch and maintain.


 * Searching by country:
 * Sometimes there are just so many spurious search hits it's hard to get useful stuff. Try searching for the gas field name plus the country:


 * Trade press:
 * So far, I've seen the oil and gas industry trade press is quite reliable and better than most trade press - higher quality writing, more critical analysis and better editorial supervision than most trade press. What I've seen so far meets WP:RS.


 * Data age and article reliability:
 * Sometimes, a reliable source may be old. Be sure to note the date of any data in the article text; don't bury it in a footnote. For instance, here's a made up example: "field size: 1.1 trillion cu.ft. (2003)"
 * I think it's OK to use this old data but only if people know the age.


 * Ideally, we should purge gas field articles one country at a time; this makes it easier to set up list articles as alternatives to deletion.
 * If someone PRODs 8 gas fields in 8 different countries, that means someone (hopefully the editor advocating deletion) has to make 8 different list articles that will each end up with just one entry.
 * WP:BEFORE requires nominators consider alternatives to deletion
 * Articles should not be deleted outright if there are alternatives such as redirecting to another article. That's Wikipedia policy.
 * Some reliable sources may discuss more than one gas field in a country. Deleting a series of articles one country at a time provides some synergy in searching for references.
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs •  global count)  03:25, 13 February 2024 (UTC)