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. the sources have been assessed and noone has challenged that te mentions were not in depth Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:07, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

International Studies Abroad

[edit]

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

Promotional article on a company. All references are either from their own website or from the website of organizations which are very closely related. None are from independent sources, which is what WP:GNG requires. Fails WP:CORP and WP:GNG. SnottyWong ^confabulate 22:39, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep References have been added from secondary sources to meet WP:GNG requirement, though there are still a bit from their own website. While organization shows up a few times in news searches, simple web search brings up an overwhelming hit count - namely from university study abroad offices (hundreds). This is the case with the field in general (see Study abroad in the United States, though this article should meet WP:CORP and WP:GNG guidelines more than existing ones that need improvement that I haven't gotten to yet (but should): American Institute For Foreign Study; Institute for the International Education of Students; Academic Programs International; Council on International Educational Exchange. user:everdayzac (talk) 19:51, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. Lacks reliable sourcing. There are only two Reliable Sources cited in the article, and they are both passing mentions about the organization's leasing space in a building. Google News search finds nothing of significance. --MelanieN (talk) 20:49, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^*poke* 01:18, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per MelanieN, and a quick Yahoo! search returns very few results. Kayau Voting IS evil HI AGAIN 01:34, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per user:everdayzac YardsGreen (talk) 09:48, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets all guidelines necessary for inclusion. Significant references to support notability. Definite Keep.--Carol1946 (talk) 06:11, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User blocked. Nakon 07:26, 11 January 2011 (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.