Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Entrepreneurs' Organization (2nd 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 speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator without objections. (non-admin closure) Esquivalience ^t 02:11, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Entrepreneurs' Organization

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

~~An advert for a nonnotable organization. No independent sources despite being tagged since 2014. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:01, 13 April 2016 (UTC)~~[reply]

Withdrawn. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:07, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:56, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:56, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:40, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Note that this source in the article at the time of the nomination (diff) from the New Straits Times is independent of the topic, as is this source from Inc. in the External links section. Also, how does the article read as an advertisement? It does not contain promotional language or weasel words/phrases extolling the greatness or virtues of the organization. It is actually worded quite neutrally, and provides an objective overview about the organization. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:40, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Keep – The topic comfortably passes WP:ORGDEPTH. Source examples include, but are not limited to: , , , , , , , , , , , , . North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:57, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

Keep - while the article needs improving, its notable enough and has reliable sources. I would tag it for improvement instead. DaltonCastle (talk) 22:36, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.