Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Integration and Application Network

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

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. ✗plicit 02:25, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Integration and Application Network

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Unnotable initiative, I couldn't find any info about it on google news or on a google search besides their official page. Fails WP:GNG `~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 18:31, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet, Websites, and Maryland. `~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 18:31, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since the Integration and Application Network is closely affiliated with University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science, much of the articles are under UMCES, or under UMCES-IAN. If you search UMCES-IAN on google news, you'll see currently 129 results, mostly where the image library symbols were used and are being cited. Additionally, since IAN allows all of their publications to be available for free download, they host their reports and newsletters directly on their website instead of using a third party. 98.117.199.223 (talk) 00:14, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes, 129 results and almost all of them are from the offical website and the other ones cannot be used as a source, so it is deemed unnotable.`~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 04:52, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:07, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't see enough secondary support Flibbertigibbets (talk) 22:25, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's a bizarre article, so filled with buzzwords and meaningless drab. But also fails GNG. SWinxy (talk) 01:53, 1 December 2022 (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.