Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SERESC

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 Speedy delete under WP:CSD#G7 as the original author blanked the page. Harryboyles 02:17, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SERESC

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

Disputed PROD. reason was "At present we see a $7m budget organisation, not small, not enormous, and we see many primary sources. What we don't see is an assertion of notability which is verified in reliable sources. WIthout these essential items the article, while interesting, should not remain here." Fiddle Faddle 22:09, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:17, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:17, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:17, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note and Speedy Close that this has become irrelevant. The creating editor has blanked it as having been placed in main namespace in error, but in good faith. It will be speedy deleted. I just have no idea how to close this AfD or I'd close it myself. There should be no prejudice against re-creation in the closure. Fiddle Faddle 23:23, 6 September 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.