Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AXA UK

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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:49, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AXA UK

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

Not Notable. No Reliable sources. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 03:07, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems obviously notable. A merge to the parent company would be preferable to deletion if it can't be expanded. --Michig (talk) 05:59, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 09:01, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 09:01, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - a subsidiary of one of the largest insurance companies in the world, this is one of the largest insurance conglomerates in the UK. Clearly notable. Just Chilling (talk) 13:51, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A quick Google News search confirms notability. Unfortunately the current article is made up entirely of primary sources, which would normally cause me to vote delete, but in this case they are for pretty non-controversial facts that would seem warranted in the article. CorporateM (Talk) 15:25, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- What a stupid nomination! This is a large insurance company in UK. The appropriate way of handling a bad article is to tag it for improvement, not to delete it. Internal sources on what services a company offers are likely to be reliable, even if they do not fit WP:RS. Indeed they are more likely to be accurate than a newspaper's commentary on them, which may well be a poor summary. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:28, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Peterkingiron, please WP:AGF. I understand that the nominator will need to find something else to do on Wikipedia. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 23:13, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was not regarding this as a bad faith nomination, merely as an inappropriate one. Poor articles should be improved, not deleted. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:03, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep clearly notable firm. I think the nominator need not be reminded that WP:AfD is not for cleanup. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 23:13, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Very notable company. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:40, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.