Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Axolotl (company)


 * 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. The consensus below is that this company is not notable given the absence of independent, reliable sources discussing it or its products. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:33, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Axolotl (company)

 * – ( View AfD View log )


 * Delete. Non-notable company. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 03:04, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 27 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. This business is an architectural firm that provides bespoke metal and concrete coatings and decorative glass solutions for interior and exterior applications.  Minor trade awards are not significant coverage; other references are self-published publicity material. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:29, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I would argue that this company could be notable if they are the largest and most well-known company in this niche market. Otherwise, I would say delete. Roodog2k (talk) 18:51, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete as evidently unnotable. Ukrained (talk) 02:22, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep this is a new technology, pioneered by the company, agree the are the first, and largest company of its type in the world. More citations are now added. Wansamabenlovin (talk) 11:58, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete No clear evidence of notability for the company, and the article reads like an advertisement for it. Nick-D (talk) 08:10, 30 January 2012 (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.