Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/O-lay

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 delete. slakr^\ talk / 08:13, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

O-lay

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

Seems to be about a specific company's approach disguised as an article about a generic methodology. The company is O-lay Offshore Pipeline Installation Services BV, website http://www.o-lay.net/, as I think you can tell only from their press release at http://www.o-lay.net/press-release. Even if it isn't spam, a verbatim Google search turns up nothing helpful for establishing notability. —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:33, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As written, clearly fails WP:GNG. I am not seeing any significant material in Google Books, but perhaps an expert can find more (if so, please WP:ECHO me and I'll reconsider the vote). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 20:51, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks LargoPlazo and Prokonsul Piotrus,

I have added two more independent websites as reference. Hope to have sufficient references now for acceptation of the article. Please, let me know your thoughts.Janfromholland (talk) 10:06, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Janfromholland:: can you explain how those new sources help the article meet WP:GNG? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:14, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus:: Hello Piotrus,

Thanks for responding.

My idea is that by reverting to websites and articles that give the subject "O-lay" and the text within the subject sufficient backup, the references help to understand the subject better. By adding the page http://www.oasisinteractive.com.my/uat/saag/spiral_lay.html I am hoping to take away the idea that the subject is an advertisement in disguise because this was one of the first comments made on the subject(a specific company's approach disguised as an article). The page reverts to an independent company using the method and by adding the http://www.marin.nl/web/file?uuid=d08172fa-f2b3-43a7-9227-b1d30b2f1ce2&owner=eca1a513-2db9-44d6-b749-b924eb501dea I wanted to show that serious research (not mentioned in the article, but the research must have cost millions of dollars) has been done on the subject, furthermore with the http://folk.ntnu.no/zhiliang/Zhiliangs-Papers-in-PDF-format/ZZ-C063-2009-OMAE-Large%20Scale%20Tests%20of%20Strain%20Capacity%20of%20Pipe%20Sections%20With%20Circumferential%20Defects%20Subjected%20to%20Installation-Induced%20Plastic%20Strain%20History-Nyhus.pdf I was willing to give evidence on the phrase that strain hardening is a serious mechanism with reel-lay, which doesn't exist when applying the O-lay method.

Since I am a newby to the wikipedia community and not so familiar with the complete set of guidelines I might be wrong. However for the offshore industry the methodology described is very simple but advanced and I believe it should find its place in the encyclopedia. So, if the references are not sufficient for keeping the article alive I have to find more/ other references.

Now I need your advice. What type of references are required to keep the subject in the encyclopedia. Janfromholland (talk) 10:43, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@ spa creator user:Janfromholland. Do you have any COI here? Are you being paid to edit? Xxanthippe (talk) 01:50, 27 February 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.