Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Society for the Advancement of Management Studies


 * 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.  Sandstein  16:29, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Society for the Advancement of Management Studies

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Not notable organization. All but one of its sources is the organization itself. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:41, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:41, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:41, 30 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment weak keep The organization may not be that notable but some can be found on the web like In a recession, large firms are more likely than SMEs to resort to personnel cuts, Timothy Devinney – The Conversation, even a journal. If it is improved, It can be kept. —  A. Shohag (pingme or Talk) 12:04, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

=> Response from the original author: Thank you for your feedback. I have added numerous links to external sources. The charity funds events and grants and supports one of the major journal in the field of management studies. It seems notable to me.
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:09, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 16:31, 6 November 2020 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete Even after improvement, still fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. The sources that provide significant coverage are either not independent or not reliable or both.  This is a regular charity doing regular charity things and this is not a directory of all "deserving" organizations. [[User:Eggishorn|Eggishorn ]] (talk) (contrib) 19:39, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:32, 15 November 2020 (UTC) => Response from the original author: Please let us know what is "significant coverage" and what sources exactly are not considered "independent" or "reliable". Without clear feedback, it is not clear how the page can be improved.


 * DELETE fails the SIRS test The Ace in Spades (talk) 00:08, 16 November 2020 (UTC) — The Ace in Spades (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Waskerton (talk • contribs).

=> Response from the original author: What is the SIRS test? I'm continuing to add external sources and references to the page. It is unclear what else can be done to improve the page.  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Discussion is leaning towards deletion, but would appreciate an analysis of any recently-added sources before making a final decision.
 * Keep I have added a reference to a book on the history of UK business and management education which contains a paragraph on the notability of the establishment of this organization (please use this link to check that reference if desired). In addition, the fact that there are numerous references to this organization in the biographies of members of the trustee council appears to me to make it notable, in that the person discussed in the bio is listed as a member in the limited space often devoted to an introductory bio - in other words, membership of this organization is notable enough to the writer of the bio to mention it. Finally the association with a recognized academic journal also serves the notability argument.--Concertmusic (talk) 14:32, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong | [chatter] ||  00:06, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete The references are extremely lack luster and clearly fail the notability guidelines. Just to break them down, 1 and 2 are both primary and basic business listings with no real details of the charity, in-depth or otherwise. Source 3 is about "The History of UK Business and Management Education" and does not discuss the company in-depth. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 18 are are all primary sources, not independent of the charity, and do not talk about it in-depth or really otherwise except in passing. Source 19 has absolutely nothing about it and just contains a name drop of one of it's trustees. Finally, sources 20 and 21 have absolutely nothing to do with it either. So, 17 out of 21 sources are primary. One is only a brief mention if even that and the rest have nothing to do with subject of the article. Therefore, this unequivocally fails WP:GNG and WP:NORG. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:07, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Answer: 19 was suggested above by one of the comments. 20 and 21 are bios that mention the charity on website of prominent universities - so they don't have "nothing to do" with the topic. I would also disagree that sources are not independent - obviously, we are talking other organisations connected with the charity in the sense that they work together (what other organisations would report on a charity out of those that directly know about its activity?), but that does not mean they are not independent. CantabSoul 28 November 2020  — Preceding undated comment added 16:49, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Was created less than a month ago by an inexperienced editor, cites almost no sources and a page issue was put in the article almost immediately. – Cupper 52 Talk to me! 12:06, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Answer21 references seem to be quite a few sources to me. The judgement on my inexperience does not seem to have anything to do with the quality of the page. Editors need to start somewhere I guess. CantabSoul 28 November 2020 — Preceding undated comment added 16:51, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep The comment about the inexperience of the editor should be discounted - what does that have to do with the value of the article? In addition, the editor has taken these comments here to heart and has tried to improve the article - cheers to that. Source 3 very clearly and directly supports the paragraph where it is used as a reference - which is what is asked for of a reference. I support keeping this article.--Concertmusic (talk) 17:25, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Relies on primary sources far too much and still fails notability guidelines even after the page was changed. BJackJS  talk 18:47, 2 December 2020 (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.