Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Central technology belt


 * 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 Advantage West Midlands. No standing arguments to keep. Verifiable material can be merged from the article history. Non-admin closure.  Jujutacular  T · C 04:31, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Central technology belt

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Upgrading from a speedy deletion. Let's see if we can save this article. Previous complaints were that it was advertising and that the company is not notable enough. I did not make the nominations for speedy deletion. -- Rick Van Tassel user&#124;talk&#124;contribs 18:14, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep . This looks like a Government-backed agency with quite a wide scope in activity and a good deal of coverage on GNews. I must admit it doesn't help that the article doesn't actually state what the Central Technology Belt is. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 07:17, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I was having some issues deciding what to do because of that problem. Thanks for the explanation. -- Rick Van Tassel user&#124;talk&#124;contribs 11:50, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I've been talked over to Merge, mostly because of the lack of content. If someone finds enough material to write a full article, it can always be split off later. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 17:55, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge to Advantage West Midlands. I see no need at present for a separate article on each of their schemes. Qwfp (talk) 07:41, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete or Merge  to Advantage West Midlands Codf1977 (talk) 09:45, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect and Merge to Advantage West Midlands. Advantage's efforts should be in the same article, but perhaps described in different sections, if they are unique enough. -- Rick Van Tassel user&#124;talk&#124;contribs 11:50, 8 June 2010 (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.