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 no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 02:05, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ryder Scott (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

questionable notability, possible vanity page, no secondary sources, the references are to primary sources only, per WP:CORP and WP:PSTS. Aurush kazemini^talk 06:41, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Notable company with third party coverage; see [1] for summary and a list of recent news articles in Business Week. JulesH (talk) 11:57, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Notable as per JulesH, this is a company often briefly mentioned in oil company press releases and I suspect a lot of people might wonder what it does exactly. And I'm not sure what you think a primary source is, Aurush, but everything cited is third party other than the Ryder Scott home page. Suggest this is a frivolous AFD, as with many of your other nominations. TastyCakes (talk) 15:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• DELETE There may be third-party coverage, but it's not referenced in the article. From what I see, the references come from primary sources. The references which are there now include brief mention in an SEC filing document another mention in "published notes of laboratory and field experiments or observations written by the person(s) who conducted or observed the experiments," and conference notes. All of these appear to fall into what Wikipedia considers to be primary sources. From WP:PSTS: "Primary sources are sources very close to an event. For example, an account of a traffic accident written by a witness is a primary source of information about the accident. Other examples include archeological artifacts; photographs; historical documents such as diaries, census results, video or transcripts of surveillance, public hearings, trials, or interviews; tabulated results of surveys or questionnaires; original philosophical works; religious scripture; ; and artistic and fictional works such as poems, scripts, screenplays, novels, motion pictures, videos, and television programs. The key point about a primary source is that it offers an insider's view to an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on." SmashTheState (talk) 17:12, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If you go to the rigzone archives and search for Ryder Scott you'll find 50 articles mentioning the company, mostly where their reserve evaluations are used (it apparently cuts off after the 50 most recent). As I say in the article's talk page, Ryder Scott is a company that is frequently behind the scenes in oil industry dealings and are usually mentioned in the press only during press releases for their various clients. TastyCakes (talk) 17:33, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Yes, we're aware what primary sources are thank you very much SmashTheState. As JulesH has shown, there is third party coverage. That it isn't referenced in the article yet is grounds for improvement, not deletion. the wub "?!" 21:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 21:23, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I've put the reference from JulesH in the article. TastyCakes (talk) 22:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable. Unencyclopedic. It looks more like a vanity page set up by someone inside the company.Strummingbabe (talk) 00:41, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please note I think there's still reason to believe Strummingbabe is a sock puppet of Aurush, the nominator. TastyCakes (talk) 01:22, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

it's clear that you think that, that's why you're running around stalking me and others making that accusation — sorry, but i don't even know the douche

to the subject at hand: i nominated this because it is unencyclopedic and hasn't shown itself to be notable Aurush kazemini^talk 03:02, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He just happens to create an account and jump right into the same AFD topics you're into (90s TV show characters and various things I edit), more often than not shows up at the same AFD articles and votes as you do and has a user page that looks like a randomly muddled up version of your own? If you really don't know him and it's stalkers you're worried about, I think he's the one you should be looking at. TastyCakes (talk) 04:32, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*shrugs* i've probably found pages to edit through his history, etc. you've shown up on pages i edited where he didn't. should i assume you're him? or maybe you're just curious about my public edit history? Aurush kazemini^talk 06:24, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, third-party RS meeting WP:GNG have been provided in this discussion, AFD is not cleanup :) The Nordic Goddess Kristen ^{Worship her} 00:17, 24 January 2009 (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.