Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Academy of Financial Management(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 no consensus. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 09:01, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

American Academy of Financial Management

American Academy of Financial Management (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

A non notable academy relying on two reliable sources which are just passing on the subject.Haimanes (talk) 14:55, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The reliable sources are The Wall Street Journal, and the "passing mention" is in the context of organizations such as this which scam their clientele. For this reason, I think it's important to have an article here which is as accurate as possible about AAFM, to counter their very robust propaganda efforts (which includes trying to hijack this article numerous times). Deleting the article is the equivalent of allowing AAFM to dictate Wikipedia content. BMK (talk) 21:56, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete- We can keep articles if they pass
  WP:N only on Wikipedia and not under any perceived reasons as BMK indicates.Haimanes (talk) 00:03, 25 March 2016 (UTC) — Duplicate vote: Haimanes (talk • contribs) has already cast a vote above.[reply
  ]

• Struck duplicate !vote from nominator; the nomination is considered as your !vote. However, feel free to comment all you'd like. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:25, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – this organization is notable per its largely negative coverage.
  flyer 17:02, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Can you provide any reliable sources which mention positively or negatively about this academy other than those two Wall Street Journal articles which are just passing on the subject.Haimanes (talk) 05:24, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 18:30, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete - Not notable per wp:N. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 01:11, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I could not find reliable sources as per
  WP:RS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kansiime (talk • contribs
  ) 04:43, 11 April 2016
• Weak Delete Fails
  WP:RS except for basically passing mentions in the The Wall Street Journal and AAFM lacks 3rd party sources discussing the organisation itself required for a stand alone article more so it is a controversial article rather than its programs or certifications. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:56, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Basically a poorly sourced hit piece, including a lot of original research criticizing the company. --MelanieN (talk) 01:24, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Per highbeam, scholar, books, and others, it seems this branch of
  WP:GNG and has notability established. I think it could be good to expand this article to include more on the larger body.[1][2]. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 07:21, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep perhaps as I frankly also considered some of the contents acceptable but was not entirely certain. Hopefully this can be better improved. Delete and Draft instead as all of this still seems questionable. Asking DGG for his analysis here and I hope this can be kept open until he can comment. SwisterTwister talk 04:24, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It is remarkably difficult to find 3rd party sources for this category of organization, but they are important in the industry, we need an article to explain the meaning of their certification, which will appear in bio articles, and what we have meets WP:V DGG ( talk ) 04:32, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, Can you explain why it is remarkably difficult to find 3rd party sources for this category of organization? If there is no enough 3rd party coverage why they are important to the industry? If the general public want the meaning for their certification let them deal with U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission or Financial Industry Regulatory Authority. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia built up based on the reliable sources and not on bio articles; or not to give meaning for certifications which appear on bio articles; or Wikipedia is not an online watchdog either.Haimanes (talk) 17:21, 30 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.