Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Energy Systems Catapult

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 redirect to Catapult centres#Centres. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:46, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Energy Systems Catapult

[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)

I'm not convinced that the subject of the article is independently notable per the WP:NCORP guidelines. Currently, the article is supported only by a link to the subject's entry on the Companies House register; I looked for better sources, but found nothing that was independent, secondary, and discussed the subject in sufficient depth to satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH. I initially redirected the title to Catapult centres, but was reverted by the author, so am nominating here. GirthSummit _(blether) 11:28, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 11:28, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 11:28, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 11:28, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:53, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion:? This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2020-10 ✍️ create

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:53, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Catapult_centres: I am seeing listings on associated initiatives and routine announcenent coverage, including a recent £47,000 research commission [1] as part of a larger UK government programme, but these do not seem sufficiently substantial to demonstrate distinct notability here. There is brief mention at Catapult_centres#Centres and perhaps that is the place to redirect and where any future content can be developed? (Such a redirect was previously reverted with the comment "unlikely"; it would be good to know why it might be inappropriate?) AllyD (talk) 08:52, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per the WP:NCORP guideline and nom. Anyone can create a redirect if they think it useful. // Timothy :: talk 12:33, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Catapult centres#Centres, clearly non-notable, but it is mentioned at the target. Devonian Wombat (talk) 06:47, 6 November 2020 (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.