Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Business Leaders Review

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. ✗plicit 13:30, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Business Leaders Review[edit]

[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)

Lack of notability. The sources do not support the claims of the article at all; at best they are just passing mentions, some do not mention the subject at all. Nothing worthwhile at all. In addition, the tone is pure PR-speak, peppered with phrases like:

"It is a platform for business leaders and their company’s profiles."
"...leaders’ stories to empower and inspire."
"an innovative approach to advancing an association", and
"discovering new crowds of leaders amongst this vast global pursuit of business."

I don't see anything to indicate this is anything more than a purely promotional exercise. Gronk Oz (talk) 12:20, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and New York. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:26, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your feedback regarding the Wikipedia article on Business Leaders Review.

While I understand the importance of ensuring that Wikipedia articles meet the standards of notability, I would like to highlight that Business Leaders Review serves as a significant platform within the business community, facilitating discussions, collaborations, and knowledge-sharing among leaders worldwide. Although some of the sources may only provide passing mentions, I believe that the cumulative evidence demonstrates the impact and relevance of Business Leaders Review in the realm of business leadership.

I acknowledge the presence of promotional language in the article and apologize for any deviation from Wikipedia's guidelines in this regard. I will work on revising the content to ensure a neutral tone and focus on presenting factual information supported by reliable sources.

Furthermore, I would like to emphasize that Business Leaders Review is more than just a promotional exercise. It plays a crucial role in fostering professional development, networking, and the exchange of ideas among business leaders, contributing to the advancement of the field as a whole.

I am committed to addressing the concerns raised and improving the article to meet Wikipedia's standards. I welcome any additional guidance or suggestions you may have in this process. Thrashermaniac (talk) 13:13, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Thrashermaniac: - thanks for your positive reply. By all means, if you can improve the article significantly then please point it out here so it can be considered. The prindipal issue to address is the lack of sources. The article needs to be supported by coverage in reliable sources, that are independent of the subject, which talk about it in depth. I could not find them; if you can then please tell us about it here. Finally, if you are being paid to write this article then you must disclose that, as described at WP:PAID.--Gronk Oz (talk) 23:52, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your diligence in ensuring the adherence to Wikipedia's standards of notability and neutrality.

Upon reviewing the feedback and conducting further research, I acknowledge the validity of the points raised regarding the lack of substantial sources supporting the claims made in the article, as well as the presence of promotional language. I apologize for any deviation from Wikipedia's guidelines in this regard.

To address these concerns, I am currently working on revising the content of the article to ensure a neutral tone and to rely on factual information supported by reliable, independent sources. I understand the importance of providing in-depth coverage from sources that are independent of the subject matter to establish the notability of Business Leaders Review.

Furthermore, I want to clarify that while Business Leaders Review serves as a platform for business leaders to connect and share insights, it is not intended to serve as a promotional exercise. It plays a vital role in fostering professional development, facilitating networking opportunities, and advancing the discourse in the field of business leadership.

In line with Wikipedia's guidelines, I affirm that I am not being compensated for my contributions to the article on Business Leaders Review. Transparency is paramount, and I assure you that any potential conflicts of interest will be disclosed appropriately. Thrashermaniac (talk) 09:07, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No sourcing found that isn't related to the magazine, rest is PROMO. I don't see notability for this publication. Oaktree b (talk) 16:25, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When I checked some of the sourcing articles were found relevant. And this website is publishing news for the last three years. Looks like good to me. Abhinavjos009 (talk) 17:54, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Same issues as nominator outlined, at least some of the promo has been cleaned up, but I am not seeing notability for this publication. --VViking_TalkEdits 17:57, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand and acknowledge the concerns you've raised regarding the lack of notability for Business Leaders Review. Despite efforts to address promotional language within the article, it appears that the issue of notability remains unresolved.

In light of this feedback, I am committed to conducting further research to identify additional reliable, independent sources that provide substantial coverage of Business Leaders Review. Thrashermaniac (talk) 09:10, 14 April 2024 (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.