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 keep. (non-admin closure) — Yash^talk stalk 11:08, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ryder Scott[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No claim of notability. The result of a prior 2011 discussion was delete and the article was recreated a year later. Jetstreamer ^Talk 23:04, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep without seeing the earlier state of the article I'm assuming from the history the deleted version was promotional - there has clearly been COI editing. But this is the third of the best known oil reserve assessors after DeGolyer and MacNaughton and Gaffney, Cline & Associates and Forbes: Volume 157, Issues 9-12 1996 "Among the best are long-established petroleum engineering firms like Dallas-based DeGolyerand Mac-Naughton and Houston-based Ryder Scott & Co." makes the company's notability fairly clear. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:27, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also with 5,400 Google Book hits for "Ryder Scott" and 1,510 Google News hits it's not exactly short of sources. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:35, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You should have added those sources if there were plenty of them in the internet when you created the article. Nonetheless, I think it's appropriate to withdraw this AfD following your cleanup of the article.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 02:51, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jetstreamer: those sources were in the article when I created it. Where COI editors are present useful to check page history before submitting AFDs. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:35, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There were no references in the article when I nominated it for deletion [1].--Jetstreamer ^Talk 13:05, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is exactly the reason to check the article's history BEFORE nominating it for deletion. From the history one could see that the article once was a well-sourced stub with clear notability about the subject before it was made an unsourced promotional article by a number of SPAs. Instead of a nomination for deletion, one should restore the version before the SPAs edits. Beagel (talk) 12:37, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:ARTN "... if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability." In any case, the article now is a solid stub, and if there are questions, it should be tagged for specific improvement, not for deletion.ch (talk) 06:24, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There were no claims of notability at the time of AFDing [2].--Jetstreamer ^Talk 13:07, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable and sourced, so the rationale for deletion is not valid any more. Beagel (talk) 12:37, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Looks notable to me and there are sources present - looks like this may have been cleaned up as a result of the AfD. -- Dane ^talk 02:37, 16 January 2017 (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.