Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Exploration Logging Company
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. Sandstein 21:05, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Exploration Logging Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No notability found for this company - Fails WP:CORP. SL93 (talk) 15:23, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - probably need to search using the contracted name Exlog - plenty of sources then - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. Mikenorton (talk) 19:33, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Google News is routine news coverage, trivial mentions, and press releases. Google Books has one source that was published by someone from the company. Google Scholar has 4 citations with two of them from the staff. The other two might be as well. SL93 (talk) 19:39, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well at least there were some sources, but I take your point about there being not too much coverage - note also that the company disappeared in to the Baker-Hughes monolith in 1987, too soon to be picked up by a lot of online sources. However, guidelines are guidelines. Mikenorton (talk) 20:48, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Google News is routine news coverage, trivial mentions, and press releases. Google Books has one source that was published by someone from the company. Google Scholar has 4 citations with two of them from the staff. The other two might be as well. SL93 (talk) 19:39, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 10:38, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete No indication of wp:notability, no references. Due to the nature of their work (which would make an interesting article if expanded) , and the possibility of being able to meet wp:notability, I would probably say leave it in as a stub to see where it goes. However, this article has had no real editing for at least 3 1/2 years. North8000 (talk) 11:53, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, fails WP:CORP. It's part of INTEQ, in turn a subsidiary of Baker Hughes, so just add some info there. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 21:12, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or merge with Baker Hughes INTEQ. No sourcing to verify, and since INTEQ is so spare, better this should be part of the history of that company's page. BusterD (talk) 16:56, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.