Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GlobalSecurity.org

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. MBisanz ^talk 00:15, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GlobalSecurity.org[edit]

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

While this web site (or its leaders) seem to be frequently quoted, the site itself appears to fail WP:WEBCRIT as 1) It doesn't appear to be the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself and 2) It doesn't appear that it has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization.

The only hint of notability is the article's claim of having been evaluated by Forbes magazine for their Best of the Web, but I've been unable to confirm that as the link is dead and I haven't been able to google it or search it up on the Forbes site. The web site is listed at botw.org, however. {{collapse

Related: The article about its founder, John E. Pike was brought to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John E. Pike and deleted. Toddst1 (talk) 20:36, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And the result of the Pike debate was merge rather than outright delete. So rename this article to Pike? Hcobb (talk) 21:21, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are incorrect: The result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John E. Pike was Delete, not Merge. Toddst1 (talk) 22:04, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - a simple GoogleNews search brings up plenty of "hits", but on closer inspection they all seem to be instances where Pike or GlobalSecurity.org have been cited as a source about something else. See here, here and here. There doesn't seem to be a lot of coverage of the company itself that would help it meet WP:CORPDEPTH. I query whether Pike himself might meet WP:ACADEMIC #7 ("...if the person is frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area.") or whether you could consider the combined expertise of GlobalSecurity.org to collectively meet such a guideline. I'm very much on the fence... The organisation is cited extensively in books like this one and this one as a source of reputable, factual information. There's also some outliers like this case study about the site itself. I would have thought Pike might meet the above criteria but GlobalSecurity.org is a collective of experts who are cited as employees / fellows of GS.org so I think keeping it (with all its experts) is better than keeping just one of the experts, if that makes sense. Stalwart111 00:23, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources do not establish notability. Mountain Herb (talk) 22:51, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 01:48, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Mountain Herb Mason Doering (talk) 01:51, 19 November 2012 (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.