Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Global Trust Center

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:37, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Global Trust Center[edit]

Global Trust Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I was set to delete this under WP:CSD#A7 and WP:CSD#G11. Unfortunately, it was a previously declined ProD, so we must discuss it first. Ancient spamticle about not notable company. Getting past the link rot, I found brief mentions in passing. Searching for news articles was not fruitful. No notabilty and content is just to close to an "about" page. Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:46, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable, fails notability requirements, fails WP:V also seems to be WP:Promotion as well. FockeWulf FW 190 (talk) 02:13, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:56, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:42, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This page was significantly shorn of content in November 2009 with the comment "simplified the page as Global Trust Council wiki now up" [1]. Note that Global Trust Council survived an AfD the following month. (It now appears to be defunct.) AllyD (talk) 07:42, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The solitary reference to a publication by IKED would appear to be primary ([2], [3]). My searches are finding passing mentions, but not the in-depth coverage needed to demonstrate that WP:ORGDEPTH is met. AllyD (talk) 07:47, 27 October 2017 (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.