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. Dr vulpes (Talk) 11:04, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Association of Business Psychologists (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Marked for notability concerns since 2010. 2 of the 3 sources are its own website, the other one being LinkedIn. A search found no third party coverage to meet WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 04:46, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Psychology, Ireland, and United Kingdom. LibStar (talk) 04:46, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Appears to be WP:ADMASQ; fails WP:NCORP. Dclemens1971 (talk) 06:59, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: no significant coverages, fails WP:NCORP. Anktjha (talk) 10:40, 28 January 2025 (UTC) sock Girth Summit _(blether) 12:30, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - zero independent sources(!). Bearian (talk) 03:30, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, WP:GNG and WP:NORG. In my own WP:BEFORE (searching for coverage of the org under its original "Association of Business Psychologists" and later "Association for Business Psychology" names), I wasn't able to find sufficient independent/reliable/verifiable sources to support the basic claims in the article. Not to mind enough WP:SIRS sources to establish notability. (I cannot, for example, seem to find sources to establish how many members the org has. Even primary ones. The British Psychological Society, for example, states that it has 70,000 members. The American Psychological Association asserts that it has 157,000 members. How many have paid for membership of this professional org? >1000? >10000? >100000? I note that, when first created, the article made an unsupported claim that it had 600 members in 2009. If it's still of that order (or even 5 or 10 times that), then it would seem to be a relatively niche org. Akin to just about any similar professional membership org. One that doesn't appear to have been covered in independent sources and for which the text asserts NO claims to notability. (It does very little to help that the article was overtly promotional from the outset. Talking about its "attractive website" on which "prominent business psychology firms are represented" and how it ran "a lively and challenging three-day conference". That this overt promotion has been continued by clearly COI/SPA contributors is also difficult to overlook.....) Guliolopez (talk) 03:27, 1 February 2025 (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.