Badak gas field: I'm not even sure if they are geographic features or built structures.  I lean toward the former.  This one seems to be about the middle of the road in terms how many sources a gas field has.  Google wise this has nothing but primary sources and they are all, wiki mirrors, or wiki type sites, trade journals and smattering of other things that just seem primary to me.  Looking at books, there are mentions.  Mostly trivial coverage.  Just a tiny few (my opinion of course) might move the needle on notability.  I don't see anything in the policy that says these don't have to meet WP:GNG.  I don't think it does, but I need more than just my opinion to keep going.  I'd like to have a discussion to settle this, so that I can go about the business of sorting through these and getting rid of the non notable ones.  I've asked the prod removers multiple times to provide me with feed back as to why they are notable.  The argument seems to be, "they are notable because they have google hits."  I'm not casting a vote by submitting this, I will vote with everyone else in the discussion.  James.folsom ( talk ) 21:24, 4 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indonesia .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:03, 5 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - thanks for bringing this to a wider group for discussion, James.  I hope to give a more thoughtful response in a few days when I'm not tied up.  I may also put some broader comments about gas fields in general on this AfD's talk page if I get the time.  -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 16:03, 5 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete I had a long think on this.  All the sources that might be used for this article are written by the petroleum industry.  I just don't think those sources are independent.  Note that I declined to vote when I brought this here.  James.folsom ( talk ) 20:52, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:37, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete or redirect I couldn't find any reliable independant sources that mention it apart from one from Reuters , and that one is about the processing facility.  With that in mind, delete the article or potentially redirect it to Badak LNG since that has information about who is using the field and what's happening to it.  Shaws username ( talk ) 02:01, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect and merge I think that A. B. has a point, it's not reasonable to expect the sources to be entirely devoid of links to the petrolium industry, and as long as they're reputable they can be used.  I still don't think that there's enough to merit it's own article and given the heavy link with the Badak LNG plant redirecting and moving the information there makes sense to me.  Shaws username .  talk .  00:53, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep -Read the ref that goes with the article.  It cites a whole chapter in a history of major gas fields.  The chapter is paywalled but establishes notability.  The free abstract alone is long and sufficient to support an article.  To me, this is open-and-shut.  In addition, there are many journal articles that are paywalled but point to notability.  I’d have cited them, too, but the abstracts weren’t especially useful and I couldn’t read the paywalled stuff.  I’m not sure they count here but they do reinforce that this was a very big deal back in the day before business news was archived online.  This field employed many thousands over time.  It absorbed many hundreds of millions (in today’s dollars) in capital investment.  It produced even more money in profits.  This was one of the top producers, globally, in its day.  — A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 15:32, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] All those sources are primary sources, WP:GNG wants secondary sources, and it wants independent sources.  I would like to see arguments around whether primary sources and secondary sources from the petroleum industry are independent of the subject of the gas field to be used to establish notability.  James.folsom ( talk ) 00:02, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I disagree; I assert these are secondary sources.  Refereed journals and publication with editorial supervision meet WP:RS whether or not they're associated with the oil and gas industry or not.  For a similar case, note that physicists at national laboratories publish journal articles about work done by those labs; we don't deprecate those.  We use journal articles written by chemists and pharmacists funded by the drug industry if they're published in reputable journals.  If others doubt with what I'm saying, I encourage them to do Google Scholar and Wikipedia library searches for themselves and see what they think.  (See the AfD talk page for comments on doing these gas field searches).  -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 00:19, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes peer reviewed journals meet WP:RS. And yes, as such can be use to write articles. What you say is try. But you are ignoring the fact that RS≠secondary source, these are apples and oranges. WP:primary defines those sources as primary. Establishing notability of a subject is a different standard. WP:GNG specifically says this needs sufficient secondary sources to establish notability and merit it's own article. However, there are some maybe secondary sources for this if you look at google books, but they are published by the petroleum community and they are few. My actual question is around whether those are secondary, and independent as well as reliable. That is what counts. Those primary sources can never do the job, they only can be used as sources of material for an otherwise notable subject. In general, regardless of the nits I'm picking at; Wikipedia is meant to be general interest for the general public. These petroleum stubs are only of interest to a very niche audience, and don't fit the mission of Wikipedia. Not to mention the fact, that the audience that would want to know anything about these would seek out upto date reliable information that is provided elsewhere. While, these are usually a decade out of date. Additionally, Wikipedia has too few editors willing to work on articles, and nobody is ever going to expand these, even if they could. James.folsom ( talk ) 23:21, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge and redirect to the larger Badak LNG plant article The Badak gas field article qualifies for retention as I noted above but a better editorial decision is to merge and redirect to the larger, more notable Badak LNG plant article. That's the liquified natural gas plant built for the Badak gas.-- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 00:08, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] See Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Badak gas field#General comments on gas field notability and deletions for more discussion of gas field notability.  -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 03:27, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per A.B. - Wow - I haven't seen an extended AFD discussion in the Indonesian scope like this for a very long time - the article was created by an editor who left a trail of very problematic articles throughout the world relative to mining and energy subjects, usually about a paragraph long, with assertions that in many cases did not stand the test of time - in the current discussion, I can see that the article has to be merged with the plant article - it makes sense.  JarrahTree 12:20, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge a properly sourced summary to Badak LNG plant article per above.  // Timothy :: talk 18:23, 18 February 2024 (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.

Discussion outcome: merge