Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Global Association of Economics Education


 * 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. Rebuttle of sources seems compelling Spartaz Humbug! 23:15, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Global Association of Economics Education

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article has to be considered to be problematic. The references are not reliable, many are blackhat SEO type references, and many seem to be paid featured articles. I see no independent quality references. The entire article is an attempt to seem to be important and to baffle with false credibility. The contributors would seem to have an undeclared conflict of interest. — billinghurst  sDrewth  07:32, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Further note, the aforementioned contributor who I accused of having a conflict of interest is the same contributor listed as uploading the image used, for which an OTRS permission exists. I will be asking the Commons OTRS to comment about this CoI aspect of this matter. — billinghurst  sDrewth  12:12, 15 February 2020 (UTC)


 * A public AfD discussion is not the correct place to make allegations of COI based on personal suspicion or guesswork. The request related to this AfD raised at c:User_talk:Krd appears to be in direct conflict with WP:OUTING, in particular Editors are warned, however, that the community has rejected the idea that editors should "investigate" each other. Posting such information on Wikipedia violates this policy, a policy that applies to all contributors. Posting on Wikimedia Commons does not by-pass the policy, nor does it make breaking it any less serious.
 * Please consider rewriting the nomination to focus on the article, rather than user accounts. --Fæ (talk) 13:03, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Please do not misquote WP:OUTING. I have not posted any public information about this person. That I draw lines between contributions that a person makes at WMF sites with regard to conflict of interest, and potentially paid editing, is just that. An article that has conflict of interest editing, and what seems like UPE outside of here that are used for references should have that noted in the deletion discussion, there are elements here that have the potential to be fraudulent. I am happy to change the structure to emphasise the problematic article, though often it is the crosswiki editing that draws one to problem articles. — billinghurst  sDrewth  11:56, 20 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Care has been taken to precisely quote WP:OUTING.
 * If you have evidence of fraud, write to WMF legal, rather than publishing claims on Wikipedia, even if you are using elliptical language. --Fæ (talk) 19:07, 20 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't have anything to add regarding the CoI allegations, but I think a case could be made for deletion, given that the organization makes very weak claims of notability, even before considering the reliability of the cited sources. For example, attaining state and federal tax-exempt status and meeting a comprehensive non-profit directory's transparency standards don't make the organization notable per se. The "formal association" with UNDGC would need to be explained further for it to be a statement of notability. (The same would hold true for the translation at the Vietnamese Wikipedia.) – Minh Nguyễn &#x1f4ac; 20:00, 15 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I was a volunteer for this organization last Fall so my opinion might be biased. Nevertheless, I believe GAEE satisfies the notability standard of Wikipedia. It is a CSO Partner and an NGO recognized by the UN's Economic and Social Council, which is quite significant for any civil society nonprofit, especially a fully youth-led one. This organization is also recognized as a strategic partner with AIESEC (I believe someone already mentioned it in the article) and listed in the Research Paper in Economics (RePEc) database of St. Louis FED. I am not a professional in terms of SEO links, but I don't see any references that are blackhat or illegal. I agree some of the references may be quite promotional, but instead of right away deleting an article about a legitimate organization (that operated in 8 countries), I believe Wikipedia has other templates like "This article may rely excessively on sources too closely associated with the subject, potentially preventing the article from being verifiable and neutral" and "This article contains content that is written like an advertisement" so someone can improve it in the future. I don't quite understand the hostility towards a youth organization here and would like to provide any insights, despite potentially biased, that may be helpful for the administrators and editors in improving this article. --38.140.158.106 (talk) 15:06, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The articles suffers more than promotional, it has links to articles that contain outright lies, and they have been added by a person with an apparent conflict of interest. If the organisation has notability, then it should be demonstrated with suitable citations. Where is the evidence that they are an NGO associated with UNESCO, surely UNESCO would have such a link, similarly any strategic partnership, otherwise it is all hearsay. — billinghurst  sDrewth  11:19, 20 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I am quite disturbed by billinghurst's ignorance of the references cited in this article. This page on AIESEC clearly indicated GAEE to be a "strategic partner." This link on the United Nations ECOSOC website clearly referred to this organization. Similarly, this page on World Economics Association shown GAEE as a global group working for the reform of economics education. RePEc also had this organization in its database. I don't understand why billinghurst went at great length to condemn this organization, including breaching the WP:OUTING and calling all the cited references "outright lies". Even if you discredit all the news sites cited, how could you consider AIESEC, United Nations, RePec, and WEA to be incredible sources? I suspect the motives of billinghurst here. Krd has already confirmed here that he/she/they "don't see any conflict of interest." 38.140.158.106 (talk) 14:06, 20 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you user 38.140.158.106 for reciting sources that affirming the legitimacy of this organization. I can see that those would like this article to be deleted cited reasons like SPAM, lies, COI, etc rather than actual issues with the article itself. If there are issues with Notability or secondary sources, I ask other users to state directly instead of attacking contributors to this article or citing elliptical, emotional reasons. Nguyen.asia.18 (talk) 21:44, 28 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:14, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:14, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:18, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I would like to add that the article has been deleted on eswiki and simplewiki for being considered spam. This is an evident cross-wiki spam issue. Esteban16 (talk) 14:30, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * How do you consider an extended confirmed user using the Content translation tool to be spam? For the record, the article in eswiki is deleted because it is "written like advertisement," not spam. The articles in these wiki was there for 5 months, so I suspect those deletions was influenced by this AfD. Previous users in this discussion have suggested to focus on the article itself, not the users who contributed to the article. If you have issues with this article, such as Notability, please address directly. Thank you. Nguyen.asia.18 (talk) 21:39, 28 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete Despite the awful WP:REFBOMBING taking place, there are zero sources that are independent, significant and in reliable sources. There is absolutely no chance of passing WP:GNG. Even supposedly RS like Gizmodo, Yahoo Finance, and Bloomberg Business are, on inspection, the exact same press release on the non-editorial portions of the sites.  There is likewise no evidence of any coverage that would demonstrate compliance with WP:NORG or any other applicable SNG. Garden-variety promotional spam. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 05:28, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep I am sad to see so-called "administrators" making such blanket statements. Out of twenty and more independent sources, they handpicked the two press releases on Bloomberg and Yahoo! Finance (well, at least Eggishorn did not say these sources are "blackhat SEO" like the venerable billinghurst constanly did) while ignoring all the sources from AIESEC, United Nations, World Economics Association, RePeC, University of Arizona, Vietnam Union of Science and Technology Associations, a governmental agency and many others. If you guys really want to delete this article, just go ahead and do it - no need to pretend to be WP:CIVILITY. So much for a so-called "consensus" that attributed everything you disagreed as COI (for the record, Krd has already confirmed here that he/she/they "don't see any conflict of interest"), SPAM, "outright lies," advertisement or even breached WP:OUTING. Yes, a student organization with strategic partnership with AIESEC, recognized as an NGO by the United Nations and included in its ECOSOC Civil Society Network, recognized by one of the world's largest professional association in its field as a "student groups working for the reform of economics education", listed on RePec, and operated in 8 countries is somehow seen as not notable enough. Nguyen.asia.18 (talk) 13:43, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * For the record, my contributions at Wikidata on topics related to this Organization was also promoted for deletion by billinghurst. He/she/they falsely claimed here that there is "no evidence of fellowship" for the subject in the Q79835203 property. This page on the RSA clearly indicated the subject in said property has been a "fellow since 2019." So yes, if the adminstrators wants to delete anything, they can just went on to cite some opaque reasons and make some blanket statements while ignoring all the facts (that they don't want to see). Nguyen.asia.18 (talk) 13:58, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * For the further record (I suppose) I should clarify that I am not an administrator, "so-called" or otherwise. That said, I have been participating in AfD discussions for over a decade and have contributed to over a thousand of them so I like to think I know what notability means on this project. I "cherry picked" those three references because they were only ones that even made an attempt at significant coverage. The vast majority of the references were barely more than simple database listings, links or "partner profiles". Allow me to quote the entire relevant text from the World Economics Association site you linked to above: Global Association of Economics Education (GAEE). To address the others; they are, respectively, a "partner profile" and not independent, a UN database listing, another database listing, and what appears to be a student journalism piece.  None of these, nor the multitude of other even less useful links at the article page (e.g., the  501(c)(3) determination from the IRS) contribute to understanding the group. This is why I linked to the essay on citation overkill.  I hope this helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:42, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The article on Gizmodo is not a Press Release. Discrediting the piece on University of Arizona as "student journalism" to opaquely claim that no sources meet the standard is absurd. If you think the sources on the UN and AIESEC website to be "not independent," then put the "Template:Primary sources" on the article.Nguyen.asia.18 (talk) 15:06, 1 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete. I could find no quality sources in an extensive search. None of the sources in the article meet the standard at WP:Verifiability. Fails WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 14:48, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Again, blanket statement. Nguyen.asia.18 (talk) 15:06, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Others have already commented on the sourcing issues, but if you want a detailed analysis. Here we go:
 * This source is self published and not independent of the subject. This source is a self published blog that is mirrored on Apple News and therefore not usable. This source is s self-paid advertisement. This source has no named contributing author or publisher and is likely a self-promotional generated piece of writing that was put out by the subject. The London Economic source is a blacklisted source on wikipedia. This source has no named contributing author. Lists with no author like this one are often paid for lists with content provided directly from the subject. This source also has no named author and is likely information taken directly from the company itself. I would go on, but its more of the same the whole way through.4meter4 (talk) 18:20, 1 March 2020 (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.