Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caverswall China Co


 * 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--Anthony Bradbury"talk" 11:30, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Caverswall China Co

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

zero evidence for notability besides a Royal Warrant .hat they sold some china to the Royal Family is not notability in any rational sense.  DGG ( talk ) 23:00, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as nothing at all convincing, local company with nothing convincing for the necessary solid independent notability. SwisterTwister   talk  01:10, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  01:10, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  01:10, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  01:10, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  01:10, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:11, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:12, 19 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:GNG. About the most interesting thing I could find was this. Not convincing. -- RM 14:43, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Not notable. Cannot find anything online other than the two cited references about the company acquistion. Congrats to the company that got a nice royal warrant and was then sold, but that's pretty much all that anyone could possibly say about the article's subject, and it may be all that has been reliably published. Prhartcom (talk) 21:40, 24 April 2016 (UTC)


 * 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.