Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IEEE AlexSB

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. per consensus--lacks 3rd party RSs & unlikely to ever have them DGG ( talk ) 00:52, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IEEE AlexSB

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

Student organisation with no indication of notability. No independent references. noq (talk) 00:03, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've attempted to explain to the author what's required here, but he can't work it out. The original text was deleted as a copyvio; he then re-created the page with the minimal text you see now. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 00:08, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable. Bramble claw x 13:51, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:ORG, possible merge any useful content to IEEE and redirect. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:53, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It would be a bad idea to merge into the main IEEE article, since this has very little to do with a large professional organization that produces standards. 76.66.194.106 (talk) 05:23, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
sMerge into a List of IEEE student branches, with just a few words on the branch; divide the list up into IEEE regions. Note that officially, the branch is not called "AlexSB" or anything of the sort, IEEE uses branch numbers, not names. 76.66.194.106 (talk) 05:23, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No indication of notability. Joaquin008 ^(talk) 10:15, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. New secondary sources have been added. --MOHAMED ELRAYANY (talk) 22:14, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've been through all of your additions and I don't see anything that indicates independent notability of your organization. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 15:46, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will filter it again --MOHAMED ELRAYANY (talk) 02:44, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, have you read WP:ORG? That seems to be the sticking point here. I quote: "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources." --Spike Wilbury (talk) 03:01, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Reads like a promo and much of it is in the first person indicating it was either copied from a brochure or that the author has a conflict of interest. No sources exist independent of the subject. meshach (talk) 01:22, 8 September 2010 (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.