Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Association for Intelligent Information Management Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Association_for_Intelligent_Information_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. ✗plicit 13:03, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Association for Intelligent Information Management (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

There has been significant conversation as to this association's notability on the article talk for years, but consensus was never clear. Especially with changing notability guidelines since this article was created, it's time for a conversation. While i can find them mentioned in articles "according to..." and their research is occasionally cited, it isn't cited frequently enough to meet any guidelines there, and sourcing is well short of CORPDEPTH significance to meet the GNG. It exists and serves an industry, but doesn't appear to be independently notable. Star Mississippi 15:44, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 15:44, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 15:44, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:36, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:36, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mhawk10 (talk) 08:25, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:32, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Neither the article nor my own search showed the significant independent coverage I believe is required for WP notability. Passing mentions, corporate listings, and databases are not sufficient. Papaursa (talk) 02:14, 28 February 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.