Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Talentsmart


 * 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. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 12:23, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Talentsmart

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

I'm not sure if this merits deletion, (may just need a rewrite) but I'm unsure which forum it should be discussed in. It's basically a puff for the company.

However, the references don't quite support the article text:

Reference 1 is the company website

Reference 2 CNN - does mention Talentsmart as a "leading provider of emotional intelligence tests"

Reference 3 Amazon - no mention of the book being a best-seller (as stated in the article text), but at least it does exist

Reference 4 article written by company employees

Reference 5 Newsweek article - doesn't mention Talentsmart.

Additionally there is one main contributor, - apart from the logo which was uploaded by the indefinitely blocked spamster, both of whom edit only Talentsmart-related pages.

I don't know what to do with this, like I said, but I think it's worth someone more experienced taking a look at. pablo hablo. 22:54, 11 February 2009 (UTC) pablo hablo. 22:54, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment From reference 5: " ... and the creators say more than 500,000 people have taken the assessment so far." Number is apparently not verified, so seems to fail WP:V. Article seems to be WP:ADVERT. Delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HeirloomGardener (talk • contribs) 23:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fits the profile: a global consultancy and think tank involved in the scientific study of personal excellence and organizational performance.  In other words, yet another non-notable, non-consumer consulting business. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:12, 12 February 2009 (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.