Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cambridge Precision Ltd

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. ✗plicit 00:15, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cambridge Precision Ltd

[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:NCORP,WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:SIRS. UPE scope_creep^Talk 00:03, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:06, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:06, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Draftify I think this may have a chance to be notable, as it seems like a somewhat significant total, but it was already draftified and then moved back into mainspace without any major further changes. It needs quite a bit of cleanup, and it clearly has COI issues, but it may have potential. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 01:48, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:07, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment further sources: an El Pais article (Translation), which talks in depth about the work of the founder (unclear to me if that corresponds with the work of the company; two lines are clearly about the company). Mentions in scientific literature are all passing as far as I can find. I don't see enough to establish notability yet, it may be a matter of WP:TOOSOON; the company seems young. Femke (talk) 17:41, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Given the indef block, I don't see the benefit of draftifying. Femke (talk) 18:33, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note – Author has been blocked for undisclosed COI. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 21:31, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The supposed article from El Pais is classic PR. scope_creep^Talk 14:31, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm somewhat new to AfD discussions, so good chance I'm wrong. I would understand it if the El Pais source would be dismissed as too trivial. The high reputation of the newspaper may not make up for the fact that it's only two lines clearly about the company, rather than a co-founder (which is mostly primary anyway). But I don't quite understand why it would be PR. Femke (talk) 18:33, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Because it is PR. It reads like a press-release. Newspaper's everywhere takes the advertising dollar including El Pais. Once you get more experience you will be able to tell the difference. scope_creep^Talk 18:48, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

delete garbage per WP:Identifying PR, draftifying unlikely to be of any use as noted above ☆ Bri (talk) 23:03, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a few mentions in media, but nothing in-depth or independent enough to qualify the subject as meeting WP:NCORP. SamHolt6 (talk) 14:07, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The company does not seem to meet the notability guidelines. Gusfriend (talk) 05:30, 10 February 2022 (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.