Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OSL 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 speedy delete per wp:g11. This is clearly promotional and fits squarely within the definition of g11. I personally also firmly believe that this is also not-notable, but since this AfD is being closed early, obviously there is not official consensus as to notability. If disinterested editors, not including AIKhan21, wish to write a neutral article sourced from what marginal sources were adduced in this article, they may feel free to do so. I believe it's impossible, but I am ready to be proven wrong of course. -- Y not? 19:39, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OSL Consulting

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

Fails WP:N -- I couldn't find any non-affiliated source. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 13:55, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have been able to locate some sources that are not affiliated to this organisation.
1. Institute of Chemical Engineers (IChemE)
Website: http://www.icheme.org/careers/acts/acts_companies/technology_and_consulting.aspx
2. East England Energy Group (EEEGR)
Website: http://www.eeegr.com/directory/osl-consulting-875.html

These institutes are very reputable, and they've shared the information cited on this article after thorough checking procedures. It goes to show that the information is credible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.249.131.206 (talk) 14:06, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:31, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The two sources specified above do not show notability, only that it is listed in directories. The company clearly wrote the first off them itself. The article itself claims nothing more than having consulted for a notable project. 'DGG (at NYPL) (talk) 20:57, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
DO NOT DELETE -- The article has now been further referenced from newspaper articles. Just to clarify to those still being a bit silly, the company does not own the Telegraph or the Hull Daily Mail. The company does not own the Nigerian Government's Department of Petroleum Resource either. I think the deletion tag should now be removed from the page. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AIKhan21 (talk • contribs) 09:34, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Further sources cited -- http://www.youroilandgasnews.com/news_item.php?newsID=47818 . Once again a secondary neutral source. Abdullah Ibrahim 10:07, 22 August 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AIKhan21 (talk • contribs)

I have tidied of the presentation of the preceding. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:28, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- This is a company, not a membership organisation. "affiliation" is thus irrelevant. A consulting company may well have a substantial input to the developemtn of a project. I am thus reluctant to write the company off in the way the nom does. However I do not know, and am not voting formally. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:28, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Peterkingiron. In addition to the sources provided above, there are also news stories in local papers ([1], [2]) Searching OSL instead of OSL Consulting provides more sources about the company. Beagel (talk) 18:07, 22 August 2013 (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.