Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Institute for Learning


 * 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. Drmies (talk) 01:58, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

International Institute for Learning

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:NCORP. No significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. 15:09, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 23 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment I found several reliable sources (mostly independed published works) that could prove useful:
 * Hope it helps. Regards. — ΛΧΣ  21™  04:09, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Hope it helps. Regards. — ΛΧΣ  21™  04:09, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Hope it helps. Regards. — ΛΧΣ  21™  04:09, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Hope it helps. Regards. — ΛΧΣ  21™  04:09, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Hope it helps. Regards. — ΛΧΣ  21™  04:09, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Hope it helps. Regards. — ΛΧΣ  21™  04:09, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Hope it helps. Regards. — ΛΧΣ  21™  04:09, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Hahc21 for doing some digging. Looking into the references you found, I see: Cheers anyway... 04:28, 29 October 2012 (UTC) 
 * -- Not an independent reference, it's basically a bit of in-book ad copy written by the company itself
 * -- Not an independent reference, it's basically a bit of in-book ad copy written by the company itself
 * -- Not an independent reference, it's basically a bit of in-book ad copy written by the company itself
 * -- Only an in-passing mention of the company name
 * -- Only an in-passing mention of the company name
 * -- Looks to be only an in-passing mention, and Bolles appears to be financially connected to the IIL (see here) so it would not be an independent reference anyway
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 05:23, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Gongshow  Talk 05:20, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

 
 * Strong delete as discussed above, no indepth sources. gnews reveals mainly PR style web references. LibStar (talk) 01:42, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 00:17, 13 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Strong delete. Non-notable due to complete lack of substantial coverage in reliable independent secondary sources. My own Google search turned up nothing but first-party and tangential mentions like those listed above. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:38, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2012 November 13.  Snotbot   t &bull; c &raquo;  16:52, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete I'm not finding sufficient independent sources (i.e. those that don't use formulations like "our" or "are pleased to announce") to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 22:25, 13 November 2012 (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.