Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Right to Succeed (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 delete. Randykitty (talk) 21:20, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Right to Succeed

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Seven years after the first AfD closed as no consensus, there is still no sign of this being a notable organisation. The sources are one press release and one interview, plus three YouTube videos with celebrities endorsing the organisation, so none of it secondary. A search for sources did not yield anything that was independent - in fact, there were very few search hits that were about this organisation at all. There is an organisation by the same name in the UK, and the phrase is used in a variety of contexts unrelated to this organisation. WP:ORGCRIT is not met, and nor is WP:NONPROFIT. bonadea contributions talk 19:06, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 19:39, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:45, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If all you can come up with is an advocacy publication, a group of entrepreneurs, and three YouTube videos, your topic isn't notable. Come back later when it gets major awards that are covered in secondary sources, like books and academic journals. Nyttend (talk) 01:44, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, absolute lack of notability. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:14, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-Per above. It's sad that this can't fit any CSD criterion.∯WBG^converse 05:43, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. The referencing is insufficient to prove notability....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:41, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Inadequately sourced, and no improvement after the last AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:55, 21 January 2019 (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.