Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Society of Protocol & Etiquette Professionals

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 redirect to Cynthia Lett. czar 16:03, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

International Society of Protocol & Etiquette Professionals[edit]

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

Fails WP:NORG. Sources given are namedrops at best and no better sources were found by search. shoy (reactions) 17:00, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ The coverage to be found were "Yearbook of Experts, Authorities & Spokespersons," "Miss Priss in the Office: First Impressions for Corporate Women" where a "Wilvena" is said to be a search associate member with the year date 2008 for some reason following behind it and lastly "The Art of Professional Connections: Event Strategies for Successful Business Entertaining" where the creator of our organization is giving her review of the writer of the book and the organization gets namedropped. All in all pretty much no coverage to be found. Mr. Magoo (talk) 17:18, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Better to Redirect to the founder's own article: Cynthia Lett. Mr. Magoo (talk) 17:20, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:10, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Promotional article on a subject with no evidence of notability. Once it's deleted, if anyone wishes to take up the suggestion of creating a redirect to Cynthia Lett, they will be free to do so, but that is not a good reason for keeping promotional content on a non-notable subject in the history, quite apart from the fact that I am highly doubtful whether Cynthia Lett is notable enough for an article anyway. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:13, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Before ISPEP many executives were complaining that they had hired an “etiquette expert” who was “certified” and they were not well trained and couldn’t answer questions due to lack of depth of their knowledge. Before ISPEP, all a person had to do was sit in a four day class and receive a certificate of attendance and they said they were “certified”. Since 2002 when ISPEP was started, they can no longer say they are certified unless they pass the CEP or CPP exam from ISPEP. I think it is notable and significant enough to have a page in Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hosam Allam (talk • contribs) 14:47, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Coverage is needed, no matter how significant it really is. Mr. Magoo (talk) 16:02, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Cynthia Lett. As much as I would like to think a freestanding page on this organization would be a net plus to WP, it doesn't seem to pass GNG muster. The fact that there is a legitimate redirect target softens the blow somewhat. Carrite (talk) 16:07, 22 August 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.