Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Global Alliance for Banking on Values


 * 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 no consensus. I don't think the situation will change with an additional relist so I'm closing this as No Consensus. Liz Read! Talk! 05:39, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Global Alliance for Banking on Values

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

This is a bit of an unusual case. This organization clearly exists, and has been active enough for long enough that it would normally be no-brainer 'notable' by Wikipedia standards. However, the current page is obviously not acceptable; if I remove the unsourced statements, the material sourced only to their own website, and the outright fabrications (this company clearly does not have more employees than Toyota or Coca-Cola), it would mean blanking the page. I was hoping to clean it up or at least replace it with something sourced to reliable sources, but I'm finding no reliable sources at all; just assorted bits of coverage clearly sourced to press releases. If someone can find some way to salvage this I'd be delighted and obviously would withdraw this nomination. As I say, it's probably a topic which be covered on Wikipedia, but I'm really not finding anything at all that would constitute a reliable source by Wikipedia's definition. &#8209; Iridescent 07:49, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions.  &#8209; Iridescent 07:49, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Relisting. Please assess changes post-nomination. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:05, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep and improve, easily sufficient SIGCOV from RS financial press newspapers on Google News. I'll start shovelling out the unsourced claims later today, and adding some reliable sources. Storchy (talk) 11:58, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Relisting comment: Relisting, as I'd welcome review from the nominator, Iridescent on the article improvements. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:40, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep, Clearly improvemnts have been made which deal with the reason for nominationTheLongTone (talk) 15:53, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * @Liz: Looking at the current version, I don't have access to sources 1 & 2 so can't assess them. At a skim, the remainder appear either to be reprinted press releases (either from the organization itself or from its members), or tangential mentions such as . My gut feeling is that the organization probably is notable in Wikipedia terms but that neither the article as nominated nor the article as rewritten demonstrate notability, but it could probably do with input from somebody with knowledge of the financial services sector to make the call. &#8209; Iridescent 07:09, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * It's precisely sources 1 and 2 that demonstrate notability. Sources do not have to be freely available online, but Google Books displays them for me: and  along with others. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:32, 8 December 2022 (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.