Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Association of Outsourcing Professionals


 * 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. Tone 15:33, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

International Association of Outsourcing Professionals

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No evidence for notability according to the rules in WP:NCORP. The first two "NY Times" refs are just pages where it is mentioned based on press releases. The 3rd NYT is just a mention. The other refs are plcements on lists or their own site.  DGG ( talk ) 06:23, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:36, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:39, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * comment - If "Five items about IAOP were covered during the first half of 2019 by The New York Times" is correct, does that mean NYTimes is no longer WP:RS, and is just a press release publisher? How many companies can get 2 items in one month, and then one each month for three months in a row? Pi314m (talk) 22:18, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:46, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Author feedback - Per WP:NCORP - notable? A Congresswoman cited them, albeit negatively, as being on the side of the bad guys. Computerworld had an article, 1/3 of which is about them, the rest is about Outsourcing training and certification, as it related to computer people. A University of Oxford/Oxford University study, posted on the National Center for Biotechnology Information's website, wants them to "update its ethical standards to be more in line with the worker protections needed in a digital economy." The awards and hall of fame part, by itself, may not be A-1/top-of-the-line notability, but when a different Member of Congress is pounding away about "a malicious attack meant to break the backs of organized labor in Ohio" that has a certain amount of notability too. The article even has a caveat from 2009 IAOP Hall of Fame inductee Peter Drucker regarding outsourcing and "large numbers of people" that begins "there is a price..." Pi314m (talk) 20:50, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Pi314m, I don't understand what you are trying to argue here. "Five items were covered" and it's sourced to a page with Google search results? That's a terrible practice--but it gets worse when one actually goes and looks at the things listed on that page, which includes stuff like this--which is clearly marked as a press release. In other words, "covered by the New York Times" is just completely untrue: the NYT merely reproduced a press release. Even reference 18, falsely claimed to link to coverage by the New York Times, is a press release, as revealed by the very URL, https://markets.on.nytimes.com/research/stocks/news/press_release.asp?docTag=201902130900PR_NEWS_USPRX____NY52388%26feedID=600%26press_symbol=6694205 . Oh, the Congresswoman--you cite the record, from the House, which is a primary source, and thus also adds nothing to notability. So no. Drmies (talk) 20:59, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete: directory information and press releases are inflated to create the idea of notability. Drmies (talk) 20:59, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 08:18, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Per both Nom and Drmies. It's also significantly promo. Either press releases, or in a couple of non-promo cases, non-secondary/independent. I don't think it would meet GNG but it definitely doesn't meet NCORP. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:58, 1 August 2019 (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.