Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The National Society of Leadership and Success


 * 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   no consensus. No consensus has been reached after 3 relistings, and 1 month at AfD. There is one !vote for keep and one !vote for delete. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 06:58, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

The National Society of Leadership and Success

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I could not find sufficient reliable sources to justify inclusion in Wikipedia. I began a revamp of the current article (which is mostly based on primary sources) and found numerous times when the organization was mentioned -- so the NSLS exists -- and I will put links to what I found in a comment below -- but I could not find one serious write-up of what the organization is really about, how it functions, how many members it has, what its impact is, how selective it is in offering membership to college students. My sense is that it is a for-profit organization along the lines of 'Who's Who', college students must pay $85 to be admitted (there are additional fees later), more of a vanity honor than a real academic honor such as Phi Beta Kappa, which is built along the lines of a business-oriented motivational speaker course, such that members are urged to bring speakers to campus (quality varies widely) which did generate a few mentions in the press. What Wikipedia needs are a few in-depth non-biased reviews which really examine what this organization is about. Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:38, 29 December 2014 (UTC)--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:34, 29 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment. The organization is mentioned in the following sources suggesting that it does promote speakers; in one instance, it gave out a $1000 scholarship (but that is the only example of it giving a scholarship that I came across, so my sense is that its overall scholarship donations are not extensive by any stretch). There are mentions here, here, here, here, here, here, here, $1000 scholarship here, here,software job here, here. I did an unfiltered search, just by the organization name itself, and did not find the in-depth write-ups that Wikipedia needs. If somebody can point me to such write-ups, I am willing to consider aborting my nomination.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:49, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  Rcsprinter123     (quip)  @ 21:13, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions.  Rcsprinter123     (witter)  @ 21:13, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions.  Rcsprinter123     (drone)  @ 21:14, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Delete: Googling the name + "scam" reveals some interesting discussions.--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 07:28, 3 January 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 03:03, 6 January 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:17, 13 January 2015 (UTC) Keep guys (and gals, ha ;) ), WP:Notability is just two independent mainstream media references. Huffpost + NBC is enough to establish notability, and if there's immense further blog controversy that the organization is "a scam" then that is only a further ironic sign of the breadth and reach and significance of the group. The WP:Notability metric is just two media references, and I think Southeast Sun Online Edition now makes it three independent media write-ups. This article needs a subsection "Controversies" dealing with the alleged scamlike aspects of some of its activities, but in any case, notability of this group doesn't seem to be in question. -Augustabreeze (talk) 10:13, 13 January 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - The Herald (here I am) 16:03, 24 January 2015 (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.