Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The National Society of Leadership and Success (3rd nomination)


 * 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 and salt. --MelanieN (talk) 01:23, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

The National Society of Leadership and Success
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

almost no substantial, independent sources on this organization per WP:Golden rule. Created by conflicted editor WP:SPA editor and subject to loads of COI editing - see headers on the article Talk page. --   Jytdog (talk) 15:07, 18 August 2015 (UTC) (clarified via REDACT Jytdog (talk) 06:59, 20 August 2015 (UTC))
 * Delete - no evidence of any notability. Two refs show that it exists and the only commentary is a from student magazine from the University of Connecticut, and even then only a passing mention along with other honor societies. Could have been a speedy A7.Fails WP:GNG.  Velella  Velella Talk 15:15, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Did you see the other versions of this article when it was nominated for deletion twice before? --Agamemnus (talk) 18:16, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Seriously?-google this company and you'll find more than enough notability. This was established during the last two deletion requests where a Director from the company represented them officially. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Die death1 (talk • contribs) 15:23, 18 August 2015‎ (UTC) — Die death1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Delete Passing mentions in several college newspapers, almost no in depth coverage except by primary sources. Fails WP:ORG--Savonneux (talk) 21:07, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Salt, salt, salt.--Savonneux (talk) 05:12, 21 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. No acceptable evidence of notability. Maproom (talk) 21:59, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. &mdash;&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·E·C) 02:39, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. &mdash;&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·E·C) 02:39, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. &mdash;&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·E·C) 02:39, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. &mdash;&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·E·C) 02:39, 19 August 2015 (UTC)


 * There seem to be a number of sources given in the first AfD that were never integrated into the article. I'm therefore sceptical on the merits of this nomination - maybe there should be more article writing and less AfD !voting... Samsara 03:57, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The nominating editor has a history of creating AfDs while removing and/or ignoring sources.--Agamemnus (talk) 17:18, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * This is AfD not DRN. If you have a problem with the nominator (you posted quite a bit on that AfD you linked) take it to the appropriate venue.--Savonneux (talk) 01:32, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Click through the sources on the other AfDs.--Savonneux (talk) 22:00, 19 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep My name is Patrick and I work in the Communications Department for "The National Society of Leadership and Success". I would like to reference back to the previous nomination for deletion as it provides insight on the previous sources and references. Orthogonal1
 * The WP:NPOSSIBLE guidelines note that just because an article does not have a significant amount of content or sources, doesn't mean they aren't out there. This article has had a sufficient amount of verifiable sources in the past and there are many more out there that can be used. Therefore according to these specified regulations; if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability.
 * I would also like to make note that "Sigma Alpha Pi" is listed in the Honor society article. Many of the other organizations listed alongside it looked very similar in content/source relativity to the previous versions of this article. If possible could someone provide me some insight as to why those articles do not have the same difficulties with AfD nominations?
 * The previous two nominations for this article to be deleted were revoked as "The National Society of Leadership and Success" has been deemed notable; notability is not temporary WP:N. In regards to the concern noted by "Savonneux", within the WP:ORG guidelines it states; "notable means "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice." With nearly half a million members from over 500 chapters all across the country receiving recognition both locally and nationally— the evidence suggests that "The National Society of Leadership and Success" is worthy and attracting notice. Patrick at theNSLS (talk) 02:19, 20 August 2015 (UTC) — Patrick at theNSLS (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * No consensus is not the same as a keep. It essentially means time ran out. Other pages are irrelevant to this discussionWP:OTHERSTUFF. Notability has to be reliably sourced, like being the main subject of news articles from organizations with a record of high quality editorial control. Think New York Times, BBC, Al Jazeera.--Savonneux (talk) 02:43, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The amount of COI editing on this Wikipedia page is substantial. Marketing department has been keeping an eye on this page and has showed up at every AfD.  There are insufficient independent sources to justify an article and we should delete this article and WP:SALT.  Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion, per WP:PROMO, which is policy. Jytdog (talk) 08:42, 20 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete Wikipedia's standards for inclusion are low and the modest proof which needs to be demonstrated to justify inclusion has not been presented. This is not a subjective judgment - there are some objective things which anyone can show and no attempt has made to present what the guidelines request. Ping me to reconsider if anyone attempts to comply with the rules.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  13:40, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Borderline Organization appears to have a wide presence but independent coverage is extremely thin. User:Patrick at theNSLS should note that what little coverage of the organization exists tends to be highly critical of the  NSLS. Wikipedia policy requires that this criticism must be included in the article. Do you really want an article on your organization that includes the description "sneaky and deceitful"? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:16, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete The participation of a director of the society in past discussions helped produce an absurd result. I hope that  by now we know how to discount such comments.    Not notable, or borderline notable at best, and used repeated as an opportunity for promotion and experience has shown the difficulty of keeping it out of the article.     Not a major society: giving $150,000 a year worth of scholarships is trivial,  but will inevitably provoke news pseudo-articles about them. What they reference is worthless content, as previous versions suchas   show.    Lack of notability is not the only reason for deletion. Borderline notability combined with clear promotionalism is an equally good reason. Small variations to the notability standard either way do not fundamentally harm the encycopedia, but accepting articles that are part of a promotional campaign causes great damage. Once we become a vehicle for promotion, we're useless as an encycopedia.  DGG ( talk ) 20:51, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. Google shows page after page after page about this grandly named society, but almost nothing among these promises to be of any use. (I also arrived at this debunking page, which is no less authoritative than anything else and certainly a lot more interesting.) -- Hoary (talk) 23:05, 20 August 2015 (UTC) PS Yes, for the reasons Orangemike suggests below, salt. -- Hoary (talk) 02:26, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete and salt - as my distinguished colleague, the notorious deletionist DGG has pointed out, the topic lacks our required standards of notability, and its history absolutely reeks of shameless WP:PROMOTION of the most hucksterish sort. -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  01:51, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete: "Lack of notability is not the only reason for deletion. Borderline notability combined with clear promotionalism is an equally good reason" sounds like gospel to me. If that puts me in league with a notorious deletionist, oh well. Brianhe (talk) 03:17, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete not notable fails WP:GNG and is  promotional.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:22, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Notability is marginal, as is the business. As a for-profit, it has to meet WP:CORP, which it doesn't. The Association of College Honor Societies reports "ACHS and this society agreed several years ago that it did not fit the ACHS model. But students getting invitations confuse it with an honor society."  John Nagle (talk) 19:30, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Does not appear to meet notability guidelines. Raykyogrou0  ( Talk ) 16:13, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete as nominated; fails WP:CORPDEPTH and is promotional in nature.  Scr ★ pIron IV 19:57, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep -the organization may be a bit shady but that is all the more reason to keep the article because prospective members can benefit from learning about the organization BEFORE joining and make a more informed decision. If they are only interested in getting a scholarship then they can find out that the chances are seriously low and they can save their money. Alternatively, if the prospective student just wants to join a real organization, shady or not, then they can confirm it is real after reading the article and join. I think the article is notable because the organization has approximately 500,000 members who paid money to join and that is significant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C0:C900:7EA5:9477:4E25:EFCE:F1CD (talk) 20:07, 25 August 2015 (UTC)  — 2601:1C0:C900:7EA5:9477:4E25:EFCE:F1CD (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * 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.