Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ISCOWA

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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 11:17, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ISCOWA

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

Per WP:NCORP. I could not locate any reliable sources to support the claims being made int he article. No references were provided in the article. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 22:25, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:32, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:32, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as corporate spam of no value to the project. Largely uncited and content is strictly advertorial. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:16, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:16, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've come up with many sources quoting their conferences and research papers. Even stuff they've done with European Commission. But no significant coverage about the organization per se. Lourdes 05:17, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of sources, poorly written, and this is the En wiki, not the NL wiki. L3X1 My Complaint Desk 23:02, 1 February 2017 (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.