Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GeoSouthern Energy

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) –Davey2010^Talk 02:17, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GeoSouthern Energy

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:Philafrenzy with the following rationale "Decline prod. Please Google before you prod." (sigh). As I discussed in my Signpost Op-Ed, this is a good example of Yellow-Pages like company spam; it fails NCOMPANY because the only in-depth (really, short notes) about this company are about routine financial events like acquisitions, mergers and stock valuation. This runs against WP:CORPDEPTH, NOTNEWS, notability due to one event ("GeoSouthern sold 82,000 acres in the Eagle Ford shale area of Texas to Devon Energy for $6 billion in cash." event is the main source of coverage for this, and audience (sources like http://www.naturalgasintel.com are at a trade-journal level and do not provide inherent, sufficient notability with their coverage). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:50, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Company has received in depth coverage in multiple reliable sources for more than one event in the Wall Street Journal, Forbes, Reuters, New York Times, and others. I stopped looking at that point. WP:BEFORE applies here. Philafrenzy (talk) 09:35, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 11:56, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 11:56, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 11:56, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps keep for now as the listed coverage seems acceptable and especially if there's more but if this needs to be deleted, delete for now until better can be made. 23:15, 13 November 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SwisterTwister (talk • contribs) 23:15, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of coverage in leading business sources as Philafrenzy notes. It is difficult to imagine how a company could sell an asset just two years ago for $6 billion and not meet any reasonable view on being a notable company. This is another in a series of AfDs on articles that I have created, all unsuccessful, and which I have previously noted amount to WP:WIKIHOUNDING by Piotrus. Edwardx (talk) 23:55, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Notable company; take a look at the references.Zigzig20s (talk) 00:50, 14 November 2015 (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.