Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AccessPay

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:05, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AccessPay

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

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

Fails WP:ORGCRIT. All sources I have located are examples of WP:ORGTRIV. Appears to have been created by a single-purpose account for promo. AusLondonder (talk) 21:31, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, and United Kingdom. AusLondonder (talk) 21:31, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:04, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks sufficient evidence of notability, including independent, reliable sources that provide in-depth coverage of the company--Loewstisch (talk) 09:56, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 23:07, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - my intuition is that this could be fixed up and made into a useful page. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 19:54, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We need sources, not intuition. AusLondonder (talk) 22:03, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article lacks third-party sources showing significant coverage and fails to meet WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. Five of the seven references in the article are press releases. The first of the other two references are a link to a list of Bacs's approved software suppliers which is not an independent source and contains no significant coverage of the article's subject. The final reference is BQ Live which is a dead link but the archived version is churnalism which also does not contribute to notability for the article's subject. Searching online I could find only trivial coverage (WP:CORPTRIV) such as this, but nothing that would contribute to notability. - Aoidh (talk) 21:55, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sources are WP:ORGTRIV, WP:PRSOURCE, WP:TRADES or some combination thereof. Fails WP:NCORP and very close to WP:ADMASQ as well. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:52, 28 September 2024 (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.