Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The National Association of Professional Women


 * 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. Black Kite (t) (c) 01:02, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

The National Association of Professional Women

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

I was googling sources to see if this was a Who's Who scam or not. All I could find were press releases or regurgitations of press release. There are some hits in google books, but they are all people and companies saying how they received "awards" from this organization. Said awards don't seem to have received coverage outside of the company's own press releases, aka no independent coverage to assert notability. Note the false positives with orgs that have similar names. This organization does not pass WP:ORG because it doesn't have independent third-party sources covering it, there is no way to build a neutral balanced article on this org. Enric Naval (talk) 15:45, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Neutral - Seems to be a real organization, not sure it meets notability, and I am sure the article is a trouble magnet. If kept, I am watching it. If deleted, I won't shed a tear.-  Sinneed  15:56, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. Like EnricNaval, I visited this article because it was linked from Who's Who scam (which is itself an article with WP:OR and sourcing issues). From my limited research on the topic, I am getting the impression that there are several similarly named organizations that cater to women's need for professional recognition. Several such groups are legitimate, but several are believed to be scams. The NAPW may or may not be a Who's Who scam, and they may or may not deserve an independent article, but Wikipedia ought at least to have an annotated list to help keep track of The National Association of Professional Women, the National Association of Female Professionals (like NAPW, this one is rated "F" by the Better Business Bureau), the National Association of Professional & Executive Women (this one gets a C- from the BBB), the National Association of Female Executives (this one is rated "A" by the BBB), the National Association of Women Business Owners (also rated "A" by the BBB), the American Business Women's Association, the Business and Professional Women’s Foundation, and others with confusingly similar names. --Orlady (talk) 17:08, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Another comment. I turned up some interesting third-party coverage in Google. It seems that NAPW has sued Google and ten other organizations for defamation. I found several secondary accounts describing the lawsuit (including, and ) and one primary source: NAPW's legal brief. Apparently the case is still pending. --Orlady (talk) 19:01, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. The name sounds like a neologism gone wrong. The article reads like no professional women have contributed to it. Perhaps they are going to sue WP if anyone says anything mean in their article. I doubt anyone could be bothered adding anything mean to the article. Being serious...it looks like a small time operation who are concentrating on building PR. I read all of the links and they are just PR buzz, there is nothing in the mainstream to verify notability. Szzuk (talk) 21:27, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete The only citation is a link to a BBB Business Review Reliability Report, which tells us very little other than that on a scale of A+ to F this business rates at F, largely because of number of complaints received. It certainly does not establish notability. The article contains a number of external links, several of which are not independent sources, not reliable, or both. There is one news report, but it is on a site which seems to have a lot of reports telling us in glowing terms how great various businesses are, so I do wonder how independent it is. Overall I see no evidence of notability. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:15, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Coverage does not pass WP:ORG. Novaseminary (talk) 16:18, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Retain. The company is an active, large-scale and controversial "Who's Who" type organization.  It is an outgrowth of the scandal-ridden Cambridge Who's Who (included in Wikipedia), operating under the same owner.  It continues to do business despite numerous allegations of fraud submitted against it by its own clients and former employees.  I believe such contrasting, topical info -- or a broader, more balanced presentation of the company and its controversial impact with supporting references -- would bring greater notability, as opposed to the largely promotional, reference-free presentation that currently exists.  L12ra (talk) 14:20, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately none of that relates at all to Wikipedia's notability criteria. Can you give any reliable sources confirming what you state about the organisation? JamesBWatson (talk) 18:59, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I was solicited for input, even if perspectives differ. Various sources reporting the above were previously furnished, and the Better Business Bureau's report (which I'd inserted as a reference) is certainly reliable. In any case, if such content doesn't relate to Wikipedia's notability criteria, why the current request for reliable sources? And how does this article or topic have less notability than the comparable Cambridge Who's Who and Who's Who scam articles? L12ra (talk) 02:32, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * A business is not notable under Wikipedia's notability guidelines because it "continues to do business despite numerous allegations of fraud submitted against it by its own clients and former employees". However, it is notable if there is significant coverage in reliable independent sources of the fact that it "continues to do business despite numerous allegations...". That is the reason for the request for reliable sources. If you can give sources that indicate that there has been significant independent coverage of any aspect of the business then that is a step towards showing that it satisfies Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. The difference in the cases of the articles Cambridge Who's Who and Who's Who scam is simply that they both do provide numerous sources. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:39, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The basis for reporting that the company "continues to do business despite numerous allegations of fraud against it by its own clients and former employees" is widely distributed public records from independent complaint bureaus. I previously cited them as references.  With the exception of the Better Business Bureau's report, all were removed by another contributor or editor, or (in two cases) blocked by Wikipedia, despite what I've understood to be their reputability or independence.  However, I agree that additional or more significant sources would increase the article's notability, as it has for the Cambridge Who's Who and Who's Who scam articles. L12ra (talk) 22:17, 2 May 2010 (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.