Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Coaching Institute

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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:00, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Coaching Institute[edit]

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

Being a registered organization does not make that organization notable. Being a finalist for several awards does not make it notable either. Having the profits from a café go towards your organization also does not make it notable. There is no evidence provided that this institution is notable, and the name of the organization is so vague that I was not able to find any reliable evidence of its notability in other contexts. Article is borderline promotional from the get-go, but let's have a discussion instead, yes? What do others think and can anyone find the right kind of sources to make this article worth retaining? KDS4444 (talk) 06:00, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. OnionRing (talk) 06:08, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination, fails WP:CORP. Writing style is spookily similar to the blocked Sockpuppets that wrote Sharon pearson, but an earlier SPI could find no connection. May I suggest adding Sharon Pearson to this AfD, same article creator, only notable in connection with this company, speedied twice as Sharon pearson. OnionRing (talk) 06:08, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 01:38, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:CORP. the Telstra Victorian Business Awards for Innovation in 2010 is hardly a major award. LibStar (talk) 06:08, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. I also just requested speedy deletion of Sharon Pearson which has already been deleted twice prior to this nomination. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:46, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Trivial awards and no actual notability. Probably a vald speedy G11 for promotionalism. The speedyon Pearson was declined byanother editor,so I've listed it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sharon Pearson. DGG ( talk ) 00:55, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW Delete as I myself would've asked DGG for his subject analysis as thus there'z nothing at all convincing. SwisterTwister talk 02:44, 12 June 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.