Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nobel Oil Group

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. j⚛e decker^talk 02:16, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nobel Oil Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Appears to fail WP:CORP, as I was unable to find any non-trivial WP:SECONDARY coverage. AlanS (talk) 09:49, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, don't see anything wrong with the article. RWCasinoKid (talk) 09:53, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. AlanS (talk) 09:56, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. AlanS (talk) 09:57, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. AlanS (talk) 09:57, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, as per nomination. AlanS (talk) 10:00, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Article is fine, and consider: "International Finance -- Sovereign Fund Watch: CIC Puts $300 Million Into a Complex Deal --- End Result Is Backdoor Listing in Hong Kong for a Russian Oil Firm; Oriental Patron Role?" Carew, Rick; Lee, Yvonne. Wall Street Journal, Eastern edition [New York, N.Y] 16 Oct 2009: C.2. 402 word article (fairly long) which says the firm was founded in 1991, and is all about the complex deal and parties involved. Excerpts: "China's sovereign-wealth fund is investing $300 million as part of a complex transaction in which a Hong Kong-listed company is seeking to take over Russian oil producer Nobel Holdings Investments Ltd.....The agreement appears to be a route to a backdoor listing of the Russian company in Hong Kong. In one unusual aspect of the deal, Hong Kong-based financial firm Oriental Patron Financial Group is a shareholder in both Nobel Holdings and the Hong Kong-listed company, Kaisun Energy Group Ltd....it is paying $300 million to buy 45% of Nobel Oil Group and fund the Russian company's expansion plans in the next nine months.... CIC also said Oriental Patron, a Hong Kong-based financial company owned and managed by former Chinese government officials, had acquired a 5% stake in Nobel Oil." There's a January 2010 Wall Street Journal article mentioning that the 300m deal went through in October. This is substantial coverage, adding to what is already present. --doncram 04:17, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I am not sure if the creator of the article is allowed to plead to keep the article, but I would like to try and defend the article on the grounds that Nobel Oil is a large company in an important part of the world which is known for its oil resources. I am sure with more research a lot more information on the company can be discovered in reliable and respectable sources. I have just added one more bit of information to the article about recent oil exploration Nobel is conducting right now in Texas, USA. Please allow the article to stay in wikipedia- I believe it is a notable company, worthy of an article, and it sheds much needed light on an area of the world which is unknown to many. Thank you.Feelingfancyfree (talk) 12:07, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback: Yes, Feelingfancyfree, it is fine and good that the article creator participates and "!votes". Probably good that you self-identify as that, just to be helpful where you are coming from, as you did. You are also free to add more comments later, just "vote" once. But an AFD isn't really a vote; the closer can/should weigh the arguments and could choose to effectively dismiss weak arguments and go with a well-reasoned, policy-consistent minority view. Your comment is fine, IMHO, in terms of supporting the article, especially in that you were spurred to add info to the article (hopefully with a source!). Your asserting/claiming that the company is large and important and it would help readers on an area where there world is relatively unknown, is okay but doesn't carry much impact in the eyes of some. Honestly i make arguments like that myself, and i think they are valid. But some will say that is just your personal opinion, not supported by sources. Anyone could say it is an important topic; proving it is better. So adding sources to the article or to this AFD discussion is really the best way to ensure a KEEP decision. There is other advice about participating in AFDs at Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions and elsewhere, which you can consult or not. You're doing fine, hope you keep up your good work. Cheers, --doncram 22:49, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Per Feelingfancyfree and Doncram. --►Cekli829 23:37, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Move. Certainly passes WP:SECONDARY if you go to sources in Azeri (thank goodness for google translate) and Russian, and WP:SECONDARY provides for foreign language sources. There's possible confusion, though, with the Russian "Nobel-Oil", which has an article on ru.wikipedia.org and some day may merit an English language article. Therefore I suggest the article name should be Nobel Oil Group (Azerbaijan). Fiachra10003 (talk) 14:37, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per User:doncram and Feelingfancyfree. XiuBouLin (talk) 00:01, 31 July 2014 (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.