- 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. causa sui (talk) 17:28, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Subsea Valley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Without any significant reference. It seems insignificant. Day000Walker (talk) 16:24, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Tried hard but failed to get any reference. It also lacks notability.
I will add references in a bit. Lukas Staniszewski
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Google news shows several articles about this consortium or organization, but mostly in Norwegian. Please see WP:BEFORE. "It seems insignificant" is not a valid reason for deletion. Pburka (talk) 17:08, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Even in Google news I don't see sufficient mention by independent sources to satisfy WP:ORG. This consortium/company was formed only one year ago; it is young: it may have more sources next year. --Noleander (talk) 17:12, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep No problem finding extensive news hits on this organization in the news using Atekst search engine. Hits include the article "Sikrer oljeoppdrag" on 26 August 2011 in Budstikka and "Inn i subsea valley" in Telemarksavisa on 25 May 2011. My main concern is not notability, but that the article is written in a promotional way, and that it is not clear that the subject of the article is an organization, not a geographical area. As it stands right now, it could be deleted for being inherently POV, but that is nothing a restructuring and copyedit couldn't fix. Arsenikk (talk) 22:25, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – The presence of reliable sources within articles and article prose is not a valid argument for article deletion. Topic notability is based upon the availability of reliable sources. Wikipedia: Articles for deletion, Section D, “Sourcing Search”, #3 states - “In the event you find that adequate sources do appear to exist, the fact that they are not yet present in the article is not a proper basis for a nomination.” Northamerica1000 (talk) 05:05, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Subsea Valley is a new organization, and therefore the news are limited. However while searching for 'Subsea Valley' in google, several news and articles pop-up. News about the organization appear in reliable secondary sources such as: Offshore.no, "Subsea Technology – Norwegian and International Perspectivesmnt" by The Norwegian Oil department and MaritimeandEnergy.com. Additionally most companies listed within the organization have news about the participation on their corporate websites. I will edit the issue of promotional writing. Lukas.staniszewski (talk) 17:19, 20 September 2011 (UTC))[reply]
- I'm just not seeing any sources. There are only a couple in Google News, and most of the links above are broken. A couple are in Norwegian, and when I translat them, it looks like this company is mentioned only in passing. I don't see a single secondary source anywhere that is about the company. Nor do I see, say, 100 sources that mention the company in a minor way. Instead I see just a few sources that mention the company in a minor way. --Noleander (talk) 06:05, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - TP 03:06, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Request - Can some "keep" editor please provide some English language translations from, say, the best 2 or 3 secondary sources that talk about this company. And, please explain how the company is presented in the source: is the source about Subsea Valley? or is the source just mentioning Subsea Valley in passing? --Noleander (talk) 06:07, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The three central companies in this group, supply 60-70% of the world market for subsea equipment. Yes, they are notable. Dream Focus 23:52, 29 September 2011 (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.