Talk:Ocean Therapy Solutions

Merge w/ Costner?

If not for its semi-notable partner in ownership, I can't imagine this company, or its sale of some machinery to BP, is all that notable. I mean, Costner's involvement with it is likely notable enough to warrant mention on his page, but is it really significant enough to be a standalone article? If their products ultimately prove to be more practical in the clean-up than traditional methods, my opinion would likely change, but as of right now, I say no.
--K10wnsta (talk) 20:27, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, nearly all of the coverage about this company comes after Deepwater. However, I haven't sifted through the many articles discussing this company, but I think that there is a lot of information out there about it now about the company, such as the effectiveness of its tools, the history of how Costner came about acquiring it (he was inspired by Exxon Valdez, his work on Waterworld, etc.), and whatnot, that there's enough information available to make a real article out of this. The article is just short for now because I'd rather create a stub and let others work on the article than not have it created at all and waiting for an autoconfirmed user to come around to creating it later. Gary King (talk) 20:52, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Your motives in starting it are reasonable enough. But analogously, think about all the third parties contracted to sell BP products to assist in this operation so far. Is there an article for the company selling all the boom materials being used to cordon off the coasts? Or the company producing the dispersant chemicals they're pumping into the ocean by the truckload? If there is (and there may be, I haven't checked), then this article's presence may be justified. If not, I don't see how it's encyclopedia-worthy until the company's products become notable for doing something other than having a celebrity investor (but it's still worthy of mention on Costner's page for the time being).
--K10wnsta (talk) 21:11, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Those examples are not the same, though. I believe this company to be notable because of the many mentions of it in reliable sources, per WP:N. Yes, as I said, nearly all those sources wrote about the company because of Costner's involvement, but they still did research to learn more about the company, and therefore we in turn know more about the company from these reliable sources and the company is therefore notable because of all this. A real article can be written here now. Gary King (talk) 21:16, 13 June 2010 (UTC)