Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cavendish Consortium

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. Daniel (talk) 00:19, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cavendish Consortium

[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)

Lack of verifiable sources: one is a dead link and the other is not independent of the subject. Mojo0306 (talk) 17:03, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 January 18. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:26, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:27, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:27, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:27, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't think the encyclopaedia would lose anything significant by not having this. RobinCarmody (talk) 23:07, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No claims of notability in the article, the only live references are primary, my search did not find anything to meet WP:GNG Jeepday (talk) 15:23, 24 January 2021 (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.