Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Foster Natural Gas Report

: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. m.o.p 17:37, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

=[[Foster Natural Gas Report]]=

{{ns:0|O}}

{{Not a ballot}}

AfD opened with article at FOSTER NATURAL GAS/OIL REPORT - The Bushranger One ping only 08:18, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

:{{la|Foster Natural Gas Report}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources|Foster Natural Gas Report}})

Non-notable product produced by a company of no discernible note. PROD declined by author (with no explanation). WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 19:48, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:35, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:35, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

  • Delete, unless the article is rewritten with independent references to assert notability. . . Mean as custard (talk) 09:51, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete. A Canadian trade publication: The Foster Natural Gas/Oil Report addresses significant regulatory and business events that impact all segments of the natural gas and oil industries. Topics of interest can include, but are not limited to, production, marketing, transportation, distribution, and end use. Advertising: was started ... (by) a group of noted economists under the auspices of a new company – Foster Associates, Inc.... Over the years it has grown and become a media source that is well-respected beyond the field of economics. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:09, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

:::Smerdis, are you arguing that it should be deleted because it is Canadian, or because it is a trade publication, or because anything that is both of them is inherently non-notable? Or because the article originally had some promotional language that can be removed? DGG ( talk ) 23:42, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

::::It's a trade periodical that reaches a limited, specialized audience. The alleged third party sources are brief descriptions that read like they were provided by the publication itself. At any rate, they aren't significant coverage with this publication itself as an in depth subject. FWIW, being picked up by news service aggregators may indicate that it's a reliable source, but that alone isn't going to turn this into a notable publication. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 04:39, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

  • Comment If the outcome of this discussion is to delete the article, please note that the article has been moved to Foster Natural Gas/Oil Report. The deleting admin should delete both the original title (now a redirect) and the final article. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 19:10, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep Please keep this article. It is about a great company in the natural gas and oil industry and a very important player. The admin who proposed that this article should be deleted stated that he did not find it on google? Clearly he did not look hard enough (or not at all) and knows nothing about the natural gas/oil industry. Foster’s competitor Platts has a page. Why are they allowed to have a page and Foster isn’t? If you delete this page, please delete the Platts page as well. Otherwise it’s not fair and you are creating a monopoly on the market.

::Below, this editor changed their vote, so I have struck-through their original !vote. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:48, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

: Also WikiDan61 (who so adamantly wants this page deleted). Said that “PROD declined by author (with no explanation).” What does this even mean? And I never declined anything. I tried to explain to him/her what Foster is. And he/she just deleted the page without any warning or explanation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Katya Foster (talk • contribs) — Katya Foster (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

:: Comment Some points for Ms Foster to consider:

::* I am not an admin. I'm just another editor.

::* Claims that this is a "great company in the natural gas and oil industry" and "a very important player" need to be backed up with references in reliable sources, of which none have been provided, nor can I find any.

::* If my searches on Google have been ineffective, perhaps Ms Foster can provide the sources that I was unable to find.

::* Ms Foster has [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AWikiDan61&action=historysubmit&diff=458655798&oldid=458653315 already been informed] that the existence of other articles on Wikipedia is not a valid argument for keeping this article.

::* Ms Foster [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Foster_Natural_Gas%2FOil_Report&action=historysubmit&diff=458512594&oldid=458511929 removed] the proposed deletion template from the article after I placed it.

::* Clearly, I did not delete the page, as it still exists. I merely nominated it for deletion.

:: I can understand that, as a new user, Ms Foster may be somewhat confused by the deletion process. Hopefully, as this discussion continues, she will become better informed about what is required. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 15:36, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

:::Just to clear some things up. I am not Ms Foster nor am I in any way related to the Foster company. I simply chose it as a user name as I am a fan of their work. Moreover, I have provided you with the company website on several occasions. Please refer to your talk page. Furthermore, if you believe that Foster does not have enough of an internet presence, it is because it is an established company in the natural gas/oil industry which everyone knows about. Foster does not need to advertise themselves. However, if you would like to know more about Foster and its work you are more than welcome to speak to any major oil company in the United States and I am sure they will be happy to enlighten you.

:::Furthermore, I did not delete any deletion template. And if I did do so, it was done in error. I am a new user and I beginning to feel very unwelcome in the wikipedia community. Perhaps Wikidan61 could refer to the following link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers. It is very helpful and educational site about how to speak and treat others.

:::Furthermore, I would like to ask you to leave this page and any other page that I create in the future alone and let other users of the wikipedia community to determine if it is appropriate or not. I feel like you are being hostile toward me personally.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Katya Foster (talk • contribs) 15:56, 3 November 2011‎

::::Please see WP:CORP for guidance on how to establish that a company meets Wikipedia's content guidelines on notability. Related to that, please see WP:RS for an explanation of what constitutes a "reliable source" in Wikipedia terms. A company existing and having a website are not enough in themselves. To meet the WP:CORP guideline, you'll need references to reliable, published, third-party sources. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:09, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

:::::Of course I understand that simply being a company and having a website is not enough. You are quite right. Thank you Barek for your contribution.

:::::Please refer to sites below for more information on Foster:

:::::http://www.lexisnexis.com/academic/1univ/envir/3newssource.asp (LexisNexis (who I believe we have all heard of and know as a good company, uses and promotes it)

:::::http://www.natgasamerica.com/s1115/ (here you can find Foster as part of the North America Gas summit)

:::::http://www.energycentral.com/reference/directories/publications/660/Foster-s-Natural-Gas-Report (this reputable site in the natural gas/oil industry is promoting Foster)

:::::There are others but I think there is no need to continue. We now all understand the importance of Foster after looking at such reputable sites. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Katya Foster (talk • contribs) 16:21, 3 November 2011‎

:Note: A notification has been made at WT:ENERGY regarding this AfD discussion. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:43, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

  • Comment Please review the guidelines of WP:RS. The citations provided are merely indications that this report exists; not that it is notable. They amount to directory listings at best. The single possible exception is the inclusion as a source for the LexisNexis Environmental Report, but even this inclusion is only marginally notable. Evidence of citations to this report in other documents and / or news reports would be needed. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 18:02, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

::Did you even bother to look at the links? The North America Gas summit is not a directory listing. It is an important event that only the top players in the industry get invited to. On top of that, now you are saying that LexisNexis is not an important database. I don’t know what you have against Foster, but please end your hostilities and allow an important page to be published. Katya_Foster

  • Comment "Foster Natural Gas Report" gets some results. I'm tagging this article for rescue and seeing what others can find. Dream Focus 19:24, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Dream Focus 19:25, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

::Thank you so much! I greatly appreciate all the help and support that i am getting from users on saving the Foster Natural Gas/Oil Report Page User:Katya Foster

  • Comment Please keep this article. The Foster Natural Gas/Oil report is not a company. It is a publication. This publication makes the most thorough review of activities at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and National Energy Board of Canada of any publication in North America. It is a widely acknowledged and important resource. I did not write this in the article, because I was trying to comply with wikipedia’s rules and I was not making it an advertisement. I am simply trying to contribute to wikipedia and create an educational page for an important resource. Katya_Foster
  • Conditional keep, if rewritten. By my understanding the correct title of this article should be Foster Natural Gas Report, which is notable journal for the oil and gas industry. Its LexisNexis overview page is [http://w3.nexis.com/sources/scripts/info.pl?7975 here]. It is in the [http://jp.factiva.com/pdf/sources/JapaneseContentList20110510E.pdf Factiva's Major Publication List] under energy section (Factiva's page for Foster Natural Gas Journal is [http://www.factiva.com/sources/details.asp?node=&source_code=FNGR here]). However, in its current form the article does not satisfy different criteria and for keeping the current article should be totally rewritten. I hope that the rescue action will resolve this. Beagel (talk) 05:43, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

:*Keep. The article was cleaned up and notability is established, so I changed my vote from 'Conditional keep' to 'keep'. Beagel (talk) 08:14, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

  • Keep If the report is cited by various sources in the industry, then its clearly notable. Dream Focus 08:09, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

::Yes you are correct the report used to be called the Foster Natural Gas Report. However, in August Foster entered the oil industry. The report has now been renamed the Foster Natural Gas/Oil Report. But it is still the same report. Thank you for all of your help. --Katya Foster (talk) 14:23, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

  • Keep I have added citations from various sources in the industry. The report is clearly notable.--Katya Foster (talk) 14:30, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
  • NOTE: This AfD has been closed twice before the seven-day AfD period was up, once as "keep" and once as "delete". I have re-opened it in light of the ongoing discussion so that the full AfD period can run. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:00, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep This report has been documented with six references, showing that it is used in the oil and gas industry, much like its competitor, Platts, a McGraw-Hill publication. --DThomsen8 (talk) 19:17, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment. The wrangling over whether this report is called the Foster Natural Gas Report (as given in some references including the one I just added to the article), or the Foster Natural Gas/Oil Report, as claimed by the creator of the article (Katya Foster), should not be an issue for whether the report is well documented and well respected within the oil and gas industry, and therefore whether it is notable and worthy to be kept on Wikipedia. A redirect can take care of the name with or without the "/Oil" addition to the name. --DThomsen8 (talk) 21:45, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete - Hello everyone!

    I created this page. However, since then, things on it have been changed. There is now much information which is incorrect. I would like to end this discussion and ask you to please delete this page once and for all. I am uncomfortable with how it looks and no longer wish to have a page on Wikipedia. I thank you for your understanding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by --Katya Foster (talk) 15:41, 15 November 2011 (UTC) • contribs) 18:58, 6 November 2011‎

:::This is the only edit of this IP editor, who is most probably another editor who previously !voted and who is logged out from their account to !vote again. As such, I have struck-through this !vote. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:03, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

::::With [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/FOSTER_NATURAL_GAS/OIL_REPORT&diff=459415403&oldid=459414895 this edit], the editor Katya Foster signed the above !vote with her account, and removed the strike-through. However this editor already has a delete !vote below, so I have reverted their edit and left this note to explain. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:38, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

::Could you please specify which information exactly is incorrect? Removing promotional tone does not make information incorrect. However, if there is incorrect information, please provide correct one, but only (and only) supported by reliable sources to verify the content. Please be also aware that there is no such thing as an ownership of pages in Wikipedia. Beagel (talk) 19:28, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

:::Please note that if you were the only editor of the page to have contributed the substantial content to the page and to the associated talk page, then the article could be deleted under WP:CSD#G7. However, at this point, several editors have been involved with adding sources and making content changes to the page. Therefore, that CSD criteria no longer applies. Please do not blank the content as you did {{diff2|459351316|here}} and {{diff2|459353531|here}}. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:36, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

::::Yes but I never asked or invited anyone to edit anything. So this does not apply. If you want to continue making things up and writting wrong information go ahead. I dont have any more time to waste on this. --Katya Foster (talk) 04:15, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

:::::As was pointed out to you before, there is no such thing as ownership of articles (see WP:OWN) - no one needed your permission to be able to edit the article (see WP:BOLD). If you have disagreement on the content, identify the specific problematic statements - don't blank out the whole article. If others reverse your edits (ie: disagreement over the accuracy and/or appropriateness of specific statements), you can discuss them on the article talk page with other editors at talk:Foster Natural Gas/Oil Report (see WP:DR). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:24, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

  • Weak Keep - basic level of notability has been established with existing sources - at least enough to barely meet notability requirements. Additional article cleanup can proceed from here. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:37, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete Article looks like promotion. There is nothing educational about it or its topic.--Katya Foster (talk) 05:44, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

::This editor voted "Keep" above, so I have struck-through their previous !vote. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:48, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

:::I have given the issue some thought and changed my mind. People who claim that it looks like a promotion are right. It is. Lets keep wikipedia clean and delete junk like this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Katya Foster (talk • contribs) 00:56, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

::::More likely, you're annoyed that you haven't been able to get your way, and want the article deleted because you cannot own it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:04, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

:::::Do not delete your previous comments. AfD is a discussion, not a vote, and deleting prior comments makes the discussion unintelligible. You're allowed to change your mind, but not to try to erase what you said earlier. I have restored your deleted comments. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:08, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

::::::I deleted something and you put it back? Thank you so much that is so helpful of you.--Katya Foster (talk) 06:20, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

:::::::Yes, you deleted something that you should not have deleted, and yes, I put it back. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:34, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

  • Keep - Although I earlier wrote elsewhere that notability could go either way, I've taken a closer look, and based on the Factiva, Clarion and LexisNexis citations, I think it squeaks by. The article is also now in much better shap and lacking in promotionalism - just straight-forward description. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:08, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

::Oh, and since absolutely no source can be found, or was offered, to support the contention that the report's name was changed, and since all the references in the article refer to it as "Foster Natural Gas Report" (FNGR), including the publisher's webpage, I have moved it to that name. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:10, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

:::::the reference for the various names is the LC entry on [http://www.worldcat.org/title/foster-natural-gas-report-from-washington/oclc/1795865&referer=brief_results WorldCat] which gives the various names, though not the dates of change. Like many databases it can be referred to by more than one title, depending upon physical format. DGG ( talk ) 23:40, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

DELETE This article is so short it serves no purpose. Its just a promotion for this Foster woman. Delete it immediately. Also, many things still need to be referenced! --Mr.BobyJones (talk) 15:37, 7 November 2011 (UTC) — Mr.BobyJones (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

DELETE OFCOURSE This article is even missing citations. Immediate delete according to wikipedia guidelines--SamtheWiki (talk) 16:11, 7 November 2011 (UTC) — SamtheWiki (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

DELETE An article written about some report? If every piece of paper ever written had a spot on wikipedia it would explode. What is the value of this article exactly? None!--Rachel Rich (talk) 16:16, 7 November 2011 (UTC) — Rachel Rich (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete Just plain delete. This is what the majority wants anyway. Thank you.--JoeBlackMorceau (talk) 16:33, 7 November 2011 (UTC) — JoeBlackMorceau (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • Keep Any database included in the Lexis- service is notable, as they are the most important collection of professional databases.It's exactly the same principle as that in which we include all journals which are covered by Web of Science. The delete comments are essentially IDONTLIKEIT. The article is descriptive and not promotional. DGG ( talk ) 23:40, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep this is not a vote but DGG seems on the right track Greglocock (talk) 00:42, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

: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.