Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WEXAS

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 delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 16:41, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WEXAS

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

Non-notable company. No independent refs and nothing obvious in google. Previously deleted by PROD and then cut-and-paste moved back to mainspace. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:34, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:16, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:16, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Am unable to find any sources that arent from the company themselves, so WP:NOTE looks like it applies here. Amortias (T)(C) 15:15, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there. I am the author of this article and work for WEXAS. I have to correct the above statement: The article was deleted before, but not in the current form. It was a stub primarily filled with advertising expressions. I have taken care of the article, tried to remove any advertisement and extended it to its current form - which was NOT subject of a deletion discussion until now. Having said that, I do agree to the point that there are not enough reliable sources in the article yet. It was rather hard to find good ones when I did it the first time. As this seems to continue being a problem, I will insert more references soon. As I am a bit busy at the moment with other things, I would ask for some extra time for doing that. I dont think there is an urge to delete this article as it is not a rubbish article per se, just not well-proven. PaulBommel (talk) 12:40, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you want more time, ask for the article to be move to the Draft: namespace, which is the place for developing articles. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:45, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a draft, this an article that is missing some references. Please do not delete.PaulBommel (talk) 10:44, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 16:15, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr^\ talk / 00:08, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WEak keep -- If the Honorary Officers really did agree to take that role, they presumably thought it significant. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:01, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I don't think more time will change the fact that WEXAS isn't notable as yet. Maybe in the future it will be but a google search reveals no sources of note bar the Sunday Times article from 10 years ago about a person not the company. There is no notability worthy of an article. I was tempted to go Speedy Delete.

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.