Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alternative Education Resource Organization

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. After three relistings it does not seem that there is going to be any more input, and the article has not been improved any. This is a

WP:Soft delete; any admin can restore it on request. MelanieN (talk) 20:15, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Alternative Education Resource Organization

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

The references provided are well below the standard required to establish notability. One is a pod cast and the others are niche sources. Fails

WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 20:31, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:35, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:35, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

(talk) 21:17, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:05, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as searches are not finding anything outstandingly better. SwisterTwister talk 04:46, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nomination and SwisterTwister. Non-notable by standards of
WP:ORG — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ddcm8991 (talk • contribs) 21:12, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Weak keep. Neither the current state of sourcing in the article nor the fact that some people don't find coverage are good reasons to delete. The organization appears significant enough, and has arguably received sufficient coverage for inclusion, e.g. [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. --Michig (talk) 07:30, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:09, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For discussion on sources provided by Michig. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 21:23, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 21:23, 3 May 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.