Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IIBM

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. Cirt (talk) 12:03, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IIBM

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

Contested prod. Inadequately referenced, misleading and spammy article intended purely to promote a non-notable commercial institution. There is no evidence that IIBM is "distinguished". Its UK "accreditation" is from a non-notable body that is still on probation, is not itself fully accredited and certainly can't confer accreditation (see http://www.odlqc.org.uk/kgm.htm). Fails WP:N, WP:VER, WP:SPAM andy (talk) 09:29, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have also nominated the following identical article:

andy (talk) 11:56, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: unsourced advertisement. Alexius08 (talk) 03:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 03:50, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails notability, probably an advertisement. I couldn't find any news sources. If there was any coverage, it would probably be about this place being a scam fake university. --Coasttocoast (talk) 05:39, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an advertisement. JIP | Talk 06:58, 18 November 2009 (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.