Talk:Squeeze job

This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Energy

	Energy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnergyWikipedia:WikiProject EnergyTemplate:WikiProject Energyenergy articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool as Stub-class because it uses a stub template. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Justification for article[edit]

A "dated prod" template was placed on this new article shortly after it was created, with this notation:

"It is proposed that this article be deleted because of the following concern: Not enough information to determine if this is process of sufficient notability. "

My response (while removing the notice to ensure the article didn't get deleted automatically after 5 days):

1) Squeeze job (squeeze cementing, "squeezing") is a commonly used term in oilfield lingo.

2) Search in Wikipedia didn't find it defined; possibly now it can be referenced in discussions under well intervention, casing cementing, etc.

3) Reference cited is Schlumberger's Oilfield Glossary, which itself is mentioned elsewhere as having won awards for excellence: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oilfield_terminology. (Note that I had or have no connection with the Schlumberger Company.)

4) For my credentials as an author, suffice it to say that I'm an engineer by training, retired from a career in the upstream end of the oil business, with job titles ranging from roughneck to Sr VP, and have designed and personally supervised (at the rig site) squeeze cementing operations.

5) Improvements and expansions of this article welcomed. Irv (talk) 20:17, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Irv, thanks for the info. The way to go about removing the prod template is not to simply delete it, but to post information that substantiates the notability of the subject, both in the article and on the discussion page for the proposed deletion. I understand the prod template can be irritating when you are just creating an article and haven't got all your ducks lined up, so to speak. And it's a challenge for individuals like myself who are only experts in a couple of fields to judge the notability of specific articles like this. So the prod tag does not dispute your knowledge, but encourages you to add the features to the article that would support it being included. I will revert removal of the prod template and encourage you to also post your comments in the talk page for the proposed deletion. Thanks. -- btphelps ^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:47, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removing prod tag per proposed deletion -- I stand corrected! -- btphelps ^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:56, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]