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 Speediedafter I tagged it (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 07:24, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Intercultural Alliance of Artists & Scholars, Inc. (IAAS)[edit]

The Intercultural Alliance of Artists & Scholars, Inc. (IAAS) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Neither of the sources confers actual notability. This is part of a walled garden. Any 501c3 will be listed in Guidestar. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:41, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I can't find anything to show that this organization is notable enough for an article at this point in time. The best thing I found was this link, which isn't really about the organization but rather a book that its leader edited, and this story that briefly mentions IAAS in passing, making both WP:TRIVIAL sources as far as the organization goes. If and I stress if her article survives deletion then this could maybe redirect there, but I would recommend against any redirects or merges until the AfDs settle and we see what - if anything - remains. The whole lot is so promotional and needs such extensive editing that even if even one of these articles survive deletion I'd recommend WP:TNT-ing the lot because of the WP:PUFFERY. All of that aside, all I can really find are things that show that the organization exists, which does not give notability in and of itself. An organization can exist and do nice things, however none of that gives notability. (WP:ITEXISTS, WP:NOBLECAUSE) To be honest, the only people that have really written about this organization are people and organizations that are related to it in some form or fashion. This article is far, far less promotional than the other articles, but as a whole the tone of the articles make a fairly good case as to why editing with a COI needs to be done very, very carefully. I'd also say that if any of these articles do survive deletion, that it'd be a good idea to restrict both editors from making any direct edits to the articles to prevent promotional edits. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 01:54, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I found the Boston Globe article too, but, as Tokyogirl79 points out, it just mentions the organization in passing. A New York City arts organization with so little press coverage is surprising. One would expect at least event listings in the Village Voice. But no. John Nagle (talk) 05:52, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:39, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:39, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete with all due dispatch. Plainly created for promotional purposes. Guy (Help!) 08:14, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all above --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:27, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and the whole 2Leaf spam cluster with it - David Gerard (talk) 07:47, 20 September 2016 (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.