Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/USERC

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. Davewild (talk) 21:00, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

USERC

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

Does not meet WP:ORGDEPTH, confirmed after several source searches. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:20, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:20, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:20, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:20, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:21, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Virtually no content other than "is an organization" and no claims to notability except being a subdepartmental agency. . . which it may not be. Hithladaeus (talk) 13:30, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's an unsourced sub-stub. Web searching convinced me that it exists but didn't turn up anything usable as a source (neither to rescue the article from its current sad state nor to provide evidence of notability). —David Eppstein (talk) 23:24, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No references to establish notability. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 21:58, 3 June 2015 (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.