Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Centre for Research on Globalisation


 * 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. HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   01:56, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Centre for Research on Globalisation

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Contested prod with reasoning I'm inclined to agree with. Doesn't clearly pass WP:CORP, quick google search reveals nothing in the way of any reliable sources indicating notability. Four Google news hits only mention it in passing in relation to one of the members.  Falcon8765  (T ALK ) 06:11, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 09:33, 17 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment Found one source: Ottawa’s Gaddafi fans find their world crumbling, a blog post on the National Post website. Sadly, all it exposes is that people behind this outfit are nutty, not that they are really notable. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:41, 17 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete – I found more hits under the Americanised spelling, but they were likewise unsubstantial passing mentions. There's currently nothing notable claimed about this organization, and I couldn't find reliable, non-trivial coverage on which to find any WP:GNG. About the only thing this article does is tie together articles on its contributors, some of whom might not withstand AfD themselves, namely Marjorie Cohn and F. William Engdahl. JFHJr (㊟) 09:47, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. I recently prodded this but was reverted by the article's creator. The organisation appears to fall short of WP:CORP. A naïve google search returns lots of hits from other similarly-named organisations, and some fringey blogs/forum posts &c that one would expect to see when dealing with conspiracy theories, but there's a dearth of substantial coverage by reliable sources. If nobody else takes them seriously, neither should wikipedia. bobrayner (talk) 13:08, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 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.