Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Global21

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. See WP:BUNDLE for how to nominate multiple articles in the same AfD. Jenks24 (talk) 04:35, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Global21[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to pass notability guidelines. Can't find third party sources on it. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 21:27, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 21:30, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: In addition to this page, I think each of the pages that were created for the different chapters of the magazine definitely need to be deleted. I was thinking of just prod-ing those but noticed that The Sydney Globalist had been previously prod-ed and contested. Is there a way to include that as part of this discussion here, or would I need to create a separate AfD for that? AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 21:33, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of notability. As for the above question, perhaps you should ask an admin for some help. I've seen multiple AFDs, but never done one myself. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 12:42, 9 October 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, KTC (talk) 00:33, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment with uncertainty - The many affiliations with the universities may suggest notability but the article reads like an advertisement rather than an encyclopedia article. Considering that their affiliations span to other countries and continents, it is certainly possible that sources may not be English but I searched with Google Books and found some. There is a book here that reads like an advertisement (there is another brief mention at the next page below). However, I returned to Google News and added "2005" to my search and found additional results. There is a promotional article here, this article supports the 2008 meeting with Turkey, another news article here that is slightly less promotional. SwisterTwister talk 20:53, 15 October 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, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 00:30, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as fail to have independent references. All the references are members of the organisation and thus not independent. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:08, 27 October 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.