Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Certificate in Digital Applications

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 Edexcel#Diploma in digital applications. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:36, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Certificate in Digital Applications

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No referenced content, article is too short 1999sportsfan (talk) 01:55, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:34, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Edexcel#Diploma in digital applications, which has about as much info on it as this article anyway. No evidence of WP:NOTABILITY, even after being tagged for over six years. Boleyn (talk) 11:59, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:47, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Good nomination Op47 (talk) 20:22, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:46, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Edexcel. This is a particular course of study at a particular school. Inherently not notable. Just plain deleting it is a viable option too, but redirects are cheap. BTW, the fact that the article is too short makes it a stub, and that's not a reason to delete. But there are plenty of others reasons. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:24, 13 September 2014 (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.