Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OneSubsea

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 (non-admin closure). Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:08, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OneSubsea

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

~~Zero reliable sources; pure advert tone. —swpb^T 13:43, 14 March 2016 (UTC)~~ Changing my position to keep; article has been significantly improved since start of AfD. —swpb^T 13:21, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - As it currently stands, the page is unverifiable with self-published sources. I was initially leaning towards deleting the page but after a quick google search, the subject appears somewhat notable. Meatsgains (talk) 15:37, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:07, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at best and Draft and Userfy if needed because my searches only found expected coverage and this is still questionable for solid notability. SwisterTwister talk 04:44, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The company is among largest subsea players in oil industry along with Subsea7, FMC technologies and GE oil and Gas. It is notable enough as compared to similar topics in wikipedia. The initial version of the article was too short to cover the subject, but the current form seems acceptable.Sattar91 (talk) 16:12, 15 March 2016 (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.