Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cambridge Solutions

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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:04, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cambridge Solutions

[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:CORP. Most of the citations seem to be non-existing links. Not enough sources found on searches either. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 18:20, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 18:20, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:31, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:31, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this AFD was rather annoying. Firstly, the article suffers from severe link rot. I ran IABot on it to rescue what little I could, and my assessment of the sources is below:

Trivial coverage per WP:CORPDEPTH (not sigcov), company profile. Rescued by IABot.
More trivial coverage per WP:CORPDEPTH, inclusion in a seemingly non-noteworthy "top 10" list
Source dead, 'archive' is a bunch of google fonts.
Another dead source. From the title looks like another "top 100" list, but cannot verify it even existed.
Saved by IABot. Very promotional, and indeed is "Sourced From: Cambridge Solutions Ltd". This won't contribute to notability.
Saved by IABot. Not sigcov per CORPDEPTH, just another office opening
Source dead. Title makes it look like a listing on the stock exchange, which would be trvial coverage if so.
Not sure about this one - I can't access it for some reason, the server is probably down. Possibly an example of "standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage, such as... of the hiring, promotion, or departure of personnel", which would mean the source fails CORPDEPTH.

Now for a WP:BEFORE search. There seem to be several "cambridge solutions" that do different things (separate businesses). Setting aside the usual listings and compilations of information which do not count to notability, I was only able to find [1] and [2], the first of which does not contribute to notability as an example of trivial coverage. As a result, this does not meet WP:NCORP or WP:GNG. Pahunkat (talk) 11:17, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet our inclusion criteria for businesses.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:29, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per everything above. Anton.bersh (talk) 19:56, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am unable to locate any deep or significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:24, 24 March 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.