Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Graduate Prospects

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) 05:28, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Graduate Prospects

[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)

not separately notable. The article doesn't make it clear, but the firm is still in existence a/c Companies House. I have not found any 3rd party references that meet WP:NCORP. If they do exist, then a merge with the various services it provides might be a reasonable solution, so I' not nominating the separate aticles on them at this times. DGG ( talk ) 17:08, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This was one of thousands of microstub pages generated (not really "written" in any normal sense) by a now-banned user. Imaginatorium (talk) 18:50, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to say "delete" but this seems to be part of Jisc so maybe redirect to that? --DanielRigal (talk) 18:56, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:46, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:47, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:47, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:47, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There isn't enough sourcing available for this to be notable and IMO the name of the organization is to general to warrant a redirect. It's not like it can't just be mentioned in the other article without a redirect either. So I don't know what other viable option there would be besides deleting the article. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:03, 22 July 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.