Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Global Challenges Foundation (2nd nomination)


 * 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 keep. Procedural keep, as per Power~enwiki (non-admin closure) Night  fury  11:36, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Global Challenges Foundation
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is a second AfD due to the first finding no consensus. Article on this organization is sourced almost entirely to its own website. The only substantial RS about it relates to a single contest it organized and, therefore, does not meet GNG for sustained and ongoing coverage. Edit - two additional RS discovered in the original AfD were fleeting and incidental mentions of the organization that do not establish anything about it other than it exists and, therefore, fail WP:ORGDEPTH. Chetsford (talk) 00:20, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:30, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:30, 29 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep - We dont put articles up for deletion again just days after the last AfD was closed. This would have been a matter for the talk page of the article. My stance has not changed in the last few days. Still keep.--BabbaQ (talk) 08:49, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Your reason for keep was "sources shows that the foundation exists" . The mere existence of a thing does not meet the threshold of WP:GNG. Many things exist, not all receive WP entries. For instance, my cat exists, however, she does not merit a WP entry even if I were able to prove her existence.
 * AfD is not a vote or ballot; per WP:AFDEQ "justification and evidence for a response carries far more weight than the response itself". Therefore, "it exists" should not be given the same consideration as a policy-based argument for delete. Chetsford (talk) 15:34, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 02:07, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:52, 5 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete fails GNG; proof of life is not proof of notability Burley22 (talk) 00:47, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * That summary makes no sense. BabbaQ (talk) 07:19, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Procedural Keep I don't see an obvious reason to delete, and it was *just* nominated. Also, I'm voting to merge a different nomination here. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 04:05, 11 November 2017 (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.