Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Institute of Business Continuity Management

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. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 03:35, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Institute of Business Continuity Management

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

Another editor previously placed a WP:PROD on this article on grounds of lack of notability. I endorsed the Prod with the rationale "No evidence of meeting WP:ORGDEPTH criteria; the article is now associated with a set of pages on the organisation's internal grades, without indication that these have wider recognition or notability." The Prod was removed by a new editor, who has also stated their case on Talk:Institute of Business Continuity Management. With respect to that case, Wikipedia does not feature articles on anticipation of future notability nor on the wishes of an organisation's membership to have an entry, nor on the honorability of the organisation: achieved notability is the key and is not evident in this case, hence I am bringing it to AfD on the same rationale as my earlier Prod endorsement. AllyD (talk) 17:50, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I agree with the nominator that notability has not been demonstrated, and I can't find anything more about it other than their own website and mentions in Linkedin and other wikis. PK T(alk) 13:25, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no indication of notability. Also delete its associated stubs such as AIBCM. PamD 13:41, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I have looked through the article and the history/references, sorry the organisation isn't yet notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia article. That's not to say it won't be in future, as its work becomes more talked-about. Really need to see a major inclusion in a mainstream news publication or business magazine.—Baldy Bill (talk) 22:14, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. Any potential future accomplishments are purely speculative. -- Whpq (talk) 18:13, 17 January 2013 (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.