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. Black Kite (talk) 14:51, 18 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Institute of Leadership and Management

Institute of Leadership and Management (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

Contested PROD. Reason was "There are no references to verify any notability. WP:ADMASQ. We require references from significant coverage about the topic of the article, and independent of it, and in WP:RS please. See WP:42. Without those it may not remain here" Fiddle Faddle 10:24, 23 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:32, 23 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:32, 23 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete No opinion on notability, but since the current article contains zero acceptable sources, the only way to enforce WP:V is to delete the entire page. CorporateM ( Talk) 01:34, 27 April 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep. We are here to decide on notability. Not having independent sources is not a reason for deletion and does not contravene WP:V - this is not an article about a minor celebrity or band which is likely to attract fancruft. The organisation's official website is not automatically an unreliable source unless it makes outrageous claims, which this one clearly doesn't. Professional associations in major countries are usually considered to be notable. I can see no reason not to give this one the benefit of the doubt. Apart from anything else, it is part of the highly respected City & Guilds organisation and awards nationally recognised qualifications. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 14:10, 27 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete - the references consist of a deadlink, a registry entry, and the subject's own website. Nothing shows notability.-- Rpclod ( talk) 05:01, 8 May 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep. I was surprised see this had been nominated as an AfD. The organisation is well known in the UK (or at the very least amongst educators, managers and leaders). They have significant involvement with accrediting centres and courses around management and leadership in the UK. There seem to be lots of findings of surveys run by ILM which have been picked up by the media. Given these factors, I had expected there might a lot more coverage of the organisation itself. There are lots of secondary sources, but I haven't managed to find a good review by an independent journalist, which the article would really benefit from. I also recognise that there are aspects of the text that appear to be written with a promotional tone but that can be fixed. I find that in terms of notability the subject of the article meets WP:ORG. Drchriswilliams ( talk) 14:19, 11 May 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep I am equally surprised that this has been nominated for deletion. The ILM is an accredited and recognised professional institution in the UK. It also meets WP:ORG. Independent sources can be found. The promotional write up can also be rectified. I see no valid reason to delete this article. Audit Guy ( talk) 12:51, 12 May 2015 (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.