Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AxiCorp

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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:45, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

AxiCorp

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

AxiCorp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

No evidence of notability under WP:CORP or any other notability guideline. Citations in present and past versions have been self-cites, press releases or unreliable sources. A WP:BEFORE shows some passing mentions of AxiCorp, and some punditry from a staff member, but nothing substantive about the company itself. Concerns about the company not fixed in six years; no reasonable prospect of organic improvement in the normal course of editing. Previously declined PROD, though without the article being fixed. I'd be happy to be shown wrong, with multiple independent third-party RSes actually about the company itself - David Gerard (talk) 22:09, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Business, and Australia. David Gerard (talk) 22:09, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
• Delete: Article relies solely on primary sources as is. A google search came back with promotional news articles (#1 #2), an article with a passing mention of Axi (was mainly about a staff member) and a sponsorship agreement with a premier league soccer club. No WP:SIGCOV (in particularly from secondary sources) and fails WP:CORP. - GA Melbourne (talk) 23:46, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
• Delete no significant secondary, independent coverage. There are a few articles in Finance Magnates (1, 2) and FinanceFeeds (1, 2), but I wouldn't consider these solid, reliable sources. Other than that, only passing mentions. Mooonswimmer 23:44, 20 January 2023 (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.