Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ISOBL


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 02:00, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

ISOBL

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Albeit the article having several listed sources, none of them are actually convincing and solid, mostly actually for their employees, and my searches also found nothing at all so here we are at AfD. Notifying author. SwisterTwister  talk  06:48, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  06:49, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  06:49, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  06:49, 9 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep half a million members is notable. Curro2 (talk) 07:16, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. I can find no evidence of notability. I haven't checked all the references cited; after finding a bunch of 404s, pages which do not mention the subject, and a page containing malware, I gave up. Maproom (talk) 07:54, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Regarding the half million member claim, the Forbes link doesn't go anyhwere except to the main Forbes site, so I have no way of verifying the claim. Same for pretty much all the rest of the links.  It's also written like a press release.  That's my two cents. Chrisw80 (talk) 10:42, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Okay, full disclosure and apologies. #1 I have edited Wikipedia for years but without registering an account and this is my first article/page. #2 I am one of the people chronicled so it may not conform to NPOV/neutral point of view. Sorry for the news release/promotional tone. I can try to re write the article but I'll leave it to you to decide/would hate to write it again and then if it is deleted after all. They DBA/do business as in several other magazine names so it is possible that some of the references that I used do not clearly establish the relationship between the members and their bigropahies and features within the magazine but if you give me a chance, I can definitely re-write the article and reach out to them for better references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RosellenChasan (talk • contribs) 12:24, 9 January 2016‎
 * I'm still inclined to suggest deletion. Notability implies that there be independent major media coverage or other reputable sources that discuss this entity.  Can you provide some sources that discuss this company directly that are completely independent and not just small business journals?  If you can't, then I would drop it.  I must say I'm a bit sceptical about all the DBAs, but I must assume good faith I suppose. Chrisw80 (talk) 09:37, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Quite a few prominent personalities enlisted, this could be considered for encyclopaedic significance. The tone may need a little alteration though. SravaniChalla (talk) 05:04, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * But we have no sources that verify these personalities are actually members of this organization. Chrisw80 (talk) 09:37, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete I can't find any evidence of notability. Fails WP:GNG. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 21:30, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete without prejudice against recreation once reliable sources surface. My searches for sources returned nothing about the subject other than its website and LinkedIn. There is insufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow International Society of Business Leaders (ISOBL) to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 04:48, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. Prure promotionalism, to the extent of a possible speedy G11. "In addition to offering accreditation, ISOBL also helps members with personal marketing and online promotion. Increasing online visibility of its members is a key specialty of the group." The claims in the article for the importance of the members are very unlikely indeed--if the most notable members they can find among their 500,000  includes a high school principal, a dentist, and the former Deputy counsel to the VP of the US.  Quite apart from whether this people are notable, they aren't in any sense "business leaders" . To the best of my knowledge, nobody has ever written about the society--all the refs are to members foolish enough to list in tin their cv's. Of so little importance that nobody with a WP article has even bothered to  included this in their article, in contrast to much more notable vanity publicity awards and societies.  DGG ( talk ) 20:41, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. Prure promotionalism, to the extent of a possible speedy G11. "In addition to offering accreditation, ISOBL also helps members with personal marketing and online promotion. Increasing online visibility of its members is a key specialty of the group." The claims in the article for the importance of the members are very unlikely indeed--if the most notable members they can find among their 500,000  includes a high school principal, a dentist, and the former Deputy counsel to the VP of the US.  Quite apart from whether this people are notable, they aren't in any sense "business leaders" . To the best of my knowledge, nobody has ever written about the society--all the refs are to members foolish enough to list in tin their cv's. Of so little importance that nobody with a WP article has even bothered to  included this in their article, in contrast to much more notable vanity publicity awards and societies.  DGG ( talk ) 20:41, 11 January 2016 (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.