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The result was keep or "nomination withdrawn", take your pick. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aban Pearl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

Wikipedia is not a newspaper. The sinking of this rig has generated some news reports because of the concidental timing with the Deepwater Horizon incident, but that seems to be its sole claim to notability. It should be noted that: "Venezuelan energy officials said that the sunken natural gas rig posed no environment threat and that no workers had died". Compared to similar sunken platforms deatailed in Category:Collapsed oil platforms, this one seems unremarkable and non-notable. No fatalities, and no remarkable failure mode, certainly not one that is likely to lead to significant design or industry changes (one of its pylons simply took on water), which is the standard of notability applied to other objects destroyed in accidents or other industrial incidents, such as aircraft. MickMacNee (talk) 19:46, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Is the rig itself notable? If so, Keep, tidy up etc, if not salvage what can be and transwiki it to Wikinews, assuming the author is happy with the difference in licensing over there. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:04, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• it still exists, it is just 1000 ft lower than it was a week ago. This is also very interesting to the general class of ships. This is no different than, aircraft carriers, or tankers, or cruse ships. Just because there is a lot of news about floating oil platforms does not mean that all information is news. Its Metadata does not change if it is in the news or not so it is wikipedia. This should be kept. --Exprexxo (talk) 21:09, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - the article is clearly about the platform as a whole and not about one event as the nominator implies. It is well referenced and a decent size also --Daviessimo (talk) 21:13, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  I am well aware this article is about a platform, but as far as I know, platforms are not automatically notable. If they are automatically notable, then by all means, please show some evidence that this is the case. Without that, the Afd rests on the question: on what basis is this platform even remotely notable, if not due to news reports based on a pure coincidence of timing? MickMacNee (talk) 21:24, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Whilst the media coverage has been sensationalist owing to the coincidence, I would take the view that such a structure sinking is a notable event (I am willing to be convinced that they do this on a highly regular basis, however). There may be a case to rename to an article about the event. It carried 95, making it quite a sizable platform. Also, I suspect that there may be changes in procedure that are often overlooked at the close of the investigation - although I do recognise that that is something for the future, not now. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 22:08, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep If a whole host of ships/aircraft can be notable enough for wikipedia this can. God knows virtually every terror attacks killing 10 people even gets its own page. Nevertheless, the rig on its own was a big money spinner, and then too the biggest earner for the company and that in a foreign country. One might call for an article expansion but that doesn't equate to a delete.Lihaas (talk) 23:11, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep per Lihaas--Wikireader41 (talk) 23:41, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdraw I don't think anybody here really knows if this platform is notable or not, but I cannot be bothered to even attempt to tackle the various diverging avenues being travelled here by the keepers, so I withdraw. I know for a fact not even every sunk ship is automatically notable, let alone every ship ever built. And I find the various claims that this particular platform is a special one entirely unconvicing, these sorts of projects and installations always have unique traits that can be spun as defining characteristics. Offshore drilling is hardly a routine industry knocking out hundreds of identical installations, yet even so it will be a thousand years before Wikipedia has articles for even 10% of these platforms, certainly not if they are only created when one stumbles into the New York Times for a day. The news aspect is patently just that, news. The sinking was unremarkable, and nobody died. Nothing about this article says 'notable' to me in the slightest, but patently others see something different, we even have a 'strong' keep, so I guess the fate of this article will have to await the deletion wars of 2015. MickMacNee (talk) 01:24, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:06, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Source It is "India's largest offshore drilling and oil field services provider", it is supposed to have "suffered a major setback", it was "one of Aban’s biggest money spinning rig earning $358,000 dollars or about a crore and a half rupees a day" and "it is one of the biggest revenue generators". Might or might not be helpful. --candle•wicke 01:19, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Obviously notable. Johnfos (talk) 04:14, 15 May 2010 (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.