Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Top One Percent Society

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. Mkativerata (talk) 01:42, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Top One Percent Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

The article does not meet the Wikipedia guidelines for notability of organizations. No reliable sources have been found for the article, even after a previous PROD. After further diligent search and discussion on the article talk page, it appears that no reliable sources can be found about the organization or its activities. Therefore the article is nominated for deletion discussion for lack of notability and lack of reliable sources. WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 01:23, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The news coverage is extremely thin, except for a few brief mentions in 1993. Drmies (talk) 03:16, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Significant coverage in reliable sources is needed to meet the notability criteria for inclusion in wikipedia, this does not seem to meet it? Hoeflin seems to have made up a bunch of things like this, see Mega Society etc. They aren't inherently notable just because he made them up. ErikHaugen (talk) 17:29, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:ORG. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:14, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:38, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I also can't find any decent sources for this, and have to make the obvious point that anyone truly qualified to join this society would be intelligent enough to realise that it's a scam for collecting testing, joining and subscription fees. Phil Bridger (talk) 00:06, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Membership is free of charge. ErikHaugen (talk) 00:30, 15 September 2010 (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.