Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Global Business School Network


 * 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. J04n(talk page) 00:13, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Global Business School Network

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This organization fails WP:GNG, WP:ORG, and WP:CORPDEPTH spectacularly. JFHJr (㊟) 06:11, 23 February 2013 (UTC)


 * On the fence for now - there's lots of stuff out there about various schools/groups joining said network, like this and this and this. Obviously, those sorts of things are from "partner" organisations so independence is a concern. But there's also a few articles like this from Bloomberg Businessweek and this and this Harvard Business Review case study. I'm not really convinced those are enough for WP:ORGDEPTH but my quick search suggests there might be more out there to be found. But if what I've found is all there is to find, then it will be a struggle. I also think there's something to be said for the fact that it is the higher education initiative of the IFC and the list of notable member organisations is impressive (though... you know... WP:INHERIT). Stalwart 111  07:56, 23 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Also this, this (though from the same Bloomberg author) and not that it means much, but it's also one of 90 US State Department Global Entrepreneurship Program partners. There's also random local coverage like this which talks about x school joining the network (there's a few like this). Stalwart 111  08:22, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 24 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   10:56, 3 March 2013 (UTC)


 * *delete* has no references in article. Thank you, MarioNovi (talk) 07:26, 6 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete as completely lacking in depth coverage in reliable independent third party sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:21, 10 March 2013 (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.