Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Golden Key International Honour Society


 * 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 keep. Nomination withdrawn. Ad Orientem (talk) 23:55, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Golden Key International Honour Society

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Appears to be a promotional page for a non-notable organization.

I heard about this society because, as a college graduate, they keep sending me spam. The talk page history indicates that the Wikipedia article has repeatedly been subject to rounds of self-interested and paid editing from Golden Key employees, and in its current state, it is almost entirely sourced by the organization's own website (and reads like it was written by them). That doesn't in and of itself mean they are non-notable, but most of the hits I found elsewhere were resume entries, rather than substantial pieces about the society itself. The major exception I found is this piece, which takes a critical look at the organization (including this very Wikipedia page). I'm not seeing indications that they have received enough independent notice to merit inclusion. Chubbles (talk) 18:37, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:58, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:58, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:58, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Keep: Whether it is a scam or not is completely irrelevant to whether there is an article about it. (see International Star Registry for example). And there are actually so many google hits for "Golden Key" in the edu domain that it took me a while to get through the pages that are simply Golden Key exists at the school (and here is a description) to get to new stories but they are there. (examples include http://www.utdallas.edu/news/2007/07/12-002.html and https://www.smu.edu/News/2015/gerard-atkinson-13april2015) Naraht (talk) 11:03, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Both those sources are more or less press releases issued by the school; does this organization get substantial coverage from third-party newspapers or magazines (and not merely "local boy makes good" pieces)? Outside of one or two articles from student newspapers which basically amount to amateur investigative journalism about the institution's merits, I'm not seeing them. (If we found a couple of investigative pieces from major press outlets, I'd withdraw my nomination, even if it is a sham outfit.) Chubbles (talk) 17:30, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * How about the following investigative article from the Washington Post (https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2002/04/21/golden-key-shows-tarnish-critics-say/fd80a6d4-7027-4ca6-b7d3-2e1bb32509a2/?utm_term=.6400b5cebfd5) another article at about the same time at (http://www.studlife.com/archives/News/2002/04/18/GoldenKeyHonorSocietycomesunderfireforloweringstandards/) and (I think) part of the article that sparked this from the Chronicle of Higher Education at https://business.highbeam.com/434953/article-1G1-146965007/dishonor-society (Chronicle of Higher Education has the entire article behind a paywall at http://www.chronicle.com/article/Dishonor-Society/18357 . Does that work?Naraht (talk) 17:47, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes! Nomination withdrawn. I will set about revamping the article to better reflect this sourcing, though I imagine it will be subject to furious edit-warring from the institution itself for the rest of my life, so please, anyone viewing this discussion, please add to your watchlists. Chubbles (talk) 17:57, 15 June 2017 (UTC)


 * 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.