Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HonorSociety.org


 * 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. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:40, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

HonorSociety.org

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

While I don't have access to the deleted version to check if the content is exactly the same, this new article shows no signs of conquering the notability flaws that got it deleted in the previous Articles For Deletion discussion. Still sourced vastly to first-party references, other references are not indicators of notability. Nat Gertler (talk) 14:14, 26 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Other sources referencing this page are universities such as Eastern Michigan University, American Red Cross, and organizations with notable wikipedia pages.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.241.1.217 (talk) 14:21, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The Red Cross page is merely a page set up to create a branded fundraising effort to get money for the Red Cross. No indication of notability. The EMU page is a press release, which is not an indication of notability. The Better Business Bureau listing is a database. The iReach and PRWeb pages are press releases. The NCHC page is just a list of member institutions, and all that means is that they paid $600 dues. The "Dream Careers" and "Think Impact" pages are just the listing of a discount for club members. And as noted in the last deletion, the MBAcrunch page is an obscure blog that did nothing but promote HonorSociety.org that year. None of these indicate notability. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:44, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

The type of notability discussed is scarce in this segment category. Look at the references of Golden Key International Honour Society or National Society of Collegiate Scholars. Virtually all of their articles are directly firsthand onsite references. For that matter, look at any Honor Society wikipedia and you will see much less large-scale notability. The fact of the matter is that the organizations are in themselves notable by virtue of their scope, affiliations, and membership. They are not actively noted in third-party resources however, generally because they are not actively news-worthy. This organization is notable to its constituency and has active member base as can be seen by their 1 million followers on Facebook, or active YouTube and Instagram followers. While the page, and segment category in general needs improvement I think it is clear they all deserve a wikipedia entry to be expanded on by the community. Further, and further exacerbating the issue of notability, is that for borderline notable entities not having a Wikipedia page limits further notability by third party sources. It's not a clear cut solution, but the page has enough weight to stand on its on legs and be expanded on. Notability is enough currently IMO, but will be expanded and built upon by allowing a wikipedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.116.244.70 (talk) 04:06, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Facebook "like" counts are useless, as likes can be purchased. We have guidelines on notability of organizations at WP:NORG; this is failing them. I can understand that the organization wants to promote itself; I see no reason that Wikipedia should be party to that. If all we're doing is reconveying the information that's on their website, then this page is unneeded, as people can find the information they seek on their website. --Nat Gertler (talk) 04:30, 27 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete: Notability isn't established on Wikipedia by page views, FB likes or stuff like that. It's established by being covered in significant detail by multiple reliable, published, third-party sources, and the anon IPs' arguments seem to boil down to ITSIMPORTANT. "They are not actively noted in third-party resources however, generally because they are not actively news-worthy" is an IP's statement, and that says it right there: since this outfit is not newsworthy, it doesn't qualify for a Wikipedia article.  Happily, the outfit can promote itself over its own website.  Nha Trang  Allons! 20:39, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Please clarify how Golden Key International Honour Society or National Society of Collegiate Scholars is considered more notable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.48.54.13 (talk) 03:42, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * This is not the place for discussing the notability of those subjects and their viability as Wikipedia articles. If you would like to see those deleted, you are free to nominate them for deletion. If your goal is to suggest that this article should not be deleted because those other have not yet been deleted, please realize that that is on our list of "arguments to avoid during deletion discussions", for reasons you'll see here. --Nat Gertler (talk) 05:05, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

As per WP:NORG: Organizations are usually notable if they meet both of the following standards: The scope of their activities is national or international in scale. The organization has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the organization.

In terms of national or international scope, the organization has conferences in Washington DC, Chicago and Los Angeles this year. In terms of coverage by multiple sources, the article is sited by Eastern Michigan University (not a press release) and NCHC (national recognizing body for honors programs) and the American Red Cross (partnerships are vetted and notable).
 * Looking at these claims:
 * The EMU piece is indeed a press release. That's why its in the "news releases" section of their website, why it has contact information in the piece. Even the URL tells you that it's a release.
 * The NCHC listing is neither significant - all it is is a mentioning of the name - nor is it independent; HonorSociety.org appears to have paid $600 to be on that list.
 * The Red Cross page is not significant (all it says about the organization is that it's trying to raise money for the Red Cross), and it is far from independent - the page exists based on the belief that the group will funnel money to the Red Cross, and the page represents itself as actually being HonorSociety.org's website (referring to itself as "the HonorSociety.org website for the American Red Cross.")
 * So we' re still left looking for those sources that would indicate notability. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:18, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

More sources added, including United States Federally Registered Trademark of HonorSociety.org, and third-party neutral posts from Baruch College, and North Carolina Central University. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jevans24 (talk • contribs) 10:25, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * As noted on our general notability guidelines, "not all coverage in reliable sources constitutes evidence of notability for the purposes of article creation; for example, directories and databases, advertisements, announcements columns, and minor news stories are all examples of coverage that may not actually support notability when examined, despite their existence as reliable sources." The added references are:
 * Crunchbase - a user-edited database, and thus no indication of notability.
 * the trademark listing at Justia is also a database, and thus not an indication of notability
 * CollegeBudget - a partner with Honorsociety,org, as noted on the page, so not independent
 * Doctors Without Borders - another page just giving a place for members to give the source money, so not independent
 * The same six-sentence blog post on BaruchHonors and NCCU is about as insignificant as one can get - a teeny item aimed at a very local audience (the student bodies) denying school involvement with some emails.
 * So, no, no notability found yet. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:02, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

It's very strict and narrow to say no notability. This page has more notability on it than virtually any honor society, and currently possesses the scope to be a valuable article. Instead of deleting the page, I would suggest adding the "Needs more sources" and "Written like an advertisement" tags and let the page stand. This will allow the community an opportunity to add neutral input, link to notable topics, and enhance the page. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jevans24 (talk • contribs) 12:51, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, yes, I'm sure you'd like to see us keep the ad page you put up for a group that - well, have you reviewed WP:COI to see if you have a conflict of interest regarding this page? But an honor society can have the sort of references that establish notability, like this honor society's article has this lengthy Wall Street Journal piece on the group as a source. That's quite a bit different than the sort of thing you've been pointing to. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:37, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 00:22, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Do Not Delete - Does not fail all measures of WP:CORPDEPTH and provides enough neutral content to justify existence. Page can be improved, but should not be deleted. Pages had justifiable content and neutral sources, and more than virtually all articles in the honor society category. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.116.244.70 (talk) 11:49, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - Fails WP:CORPDEPTH per above. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 13:41, 6 March 2015 (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.