Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wescorp Energy Inc.


 * 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 (non-admin closure). VG &#x260E; 21:15, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Wescorp Energy Inc.

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable local company with references only from local newspapers. VG &#x260E; 02:57, 3 October 2008 (UTC) Notability established from reliable sources. VG &#x260E; 21:15, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.   -- Xymmax  So let it be written   So let it be done  03:10, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * comment this page was Speedy'd. I recreated it as there was no time between the speedy template being placed and the deletion. A speedy is not a replacement for AFD, nor is it a method to bypass a AFD. Exit2DOS2000   •T•C•  03:22, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete Per A7, so tagged. ukexpat (talk) 03:29, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 *  Speedy DELETE Per A7. Article reads like a CV for the company and also feels like WP:Advert. I'd hate that an article on WIKI might tend to increase profits for stockholders, as search finds me their own website, a report on Yahoo finance, stock statistics, a overview at topix.nytimes.com, another stock report, a "company snapshot", an interview with the company chairman, another trading report, a Reuter's artcle, a businessweek report for possible investors, etc, etc. I do not find anything that shows any special notability. It has coverage, but as much coverage as any business with stock for sale might expect. I believe it does not show notability per WP:CORP.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 03:33, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep notable it the oilfield & oil production sectors. WP:V + RS are satisfied. I believe that a 100fold improvement over the current technology give it WP:N. Exit2DOS2000   •T•C•  03:57, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Neutral comment - I've declined speedy...the article has 3 refs, which is an assertion of notability, therefore it is inelegible for speedy. Discuss here the merits of the refs and whether they meet WP:CORP.  AK Radecki Speaketh  04:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 *  Delete , weakly. This business may be notable, but when the opening sentence starts off describing it as an operations and maintenance solutions company rather than telling us what they actually do, it strikes me that we'd be better off with a concrete article written from scratch.  - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 13:59, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep after Eastmain's model rewrite. It looked like the business had some kind of interesting technology; telling us what it does makes it seem significant rather than spammy. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 20:29, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete then rewrite from scratch, seems somewhat notable, but way too promotional.--Boffob (talk) 15:09, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Unless this gets a rewrite, this is strictly an advertisement and deserves erasure. Ecoleetage (talk) 16:06, 3 October 2008 (UTC)Keep It got a rewrite, and a damn good one. Keep it! Ecoleetage (talk) 20:20, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Plenty of references. Style issues are not a reason for deletion. -- Eastmain (talk) 19:44, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per amazing work done by User:Eastmain and User:Powzapbiff. I struck my delete above and now support inclusion in Wikipedia.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 20:57, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * 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.