Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Society for Human Resource Management


 * 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. Consensus is that the Society for Human Resource Management is of note.  Malinaccier ( talk ) 00:13, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Society for Human Resource Management

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Per source searches, does not meet WP:ORGDEPTH. Sources providing in-depth coverage are primary sources, press releases or from the organization itself. Not finding enough independent source coverage to qualify an article. North America1000 09:32, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Baby miss  fortune 09:44, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Baby miss  fortune 09:45, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Baby miss  fortune 09:46, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Baby miss  fortune 09:46, 10 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Weak delete: The Washington Business Journal source on the size of the organization does lead me to suspect there may be a pony in all this, but I'm not finding it. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:42, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep --- When we retain articles about four-store chicken chains, a society with $113 million budget is not really a candidate for deletion, is it? The top guy makes $1.3 million, more, I bet, than the whole chicken chain. Rhadow (talk) 17:45, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - SHRM is the primary professional association in the field. The best reliable source I can find to meet ORGDEPTH is this Journal of Management Education paper assessing its impact on the curriculum of HR education programs. Additionally, though it was written by a SHRM executive and may not fully qualify as independent, the peer-reviewed Academy of Management Journal has somewhat detailed coverage of some of the organization's practices, and this Conference paper from MIT recognizes it as representative of the field as a whole. In addition to the article's existing notes of SHRM work with the EEOC and Department of Labor, SHRM has been invited to testify before Congress. In trying to locate these sources, I found their work cited in a number of academic business journals. MarginalCost (talk) 18:13, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep The size and scope of the organization are a strong claim of notability, which is backed up by the scope and depth of coverage in reliable and verifiable sources about the SHRM. Alansohn (talk) 22:51, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep- well known by anyone in the field of human resources. I seem to recall seeing television commercials earlier this year to promote the organization. I don't see it mentioned in the article, but they actually provide certifications for human resource professionals.--Rusf10 (talk) 07:32, 13 December 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.