Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Global Environment Organisation


 * 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. Although some of the "keep" opinions are facetious, notably that by Glenridge, there is insufficient consensus to determine that coverage of this proposal is insufficient to make it notable. Perhaps a renomination is in order some time after the Copenhagen conference.  Sandstein  06:56, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Global Environment Organisation

 * – (View AfD (View log  •  AfD statistics)

A non-notable proposed organization that has been in the planning stages since at least 1999. Appears to fail WP:ORG  ttonyb (talk) 01:10, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

The article has been given more serious references and external links since.The fact that the institution is at the official proposition stage also clarified. Thanks for feedback. --cesarharada (talk) 02:19, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Per nom and per reasons stated in my PROD nomination (WP:CRYSTAL and WP:SOAP). Regardless of whether or not the world could benefit from such an organization, it does not yet exist so it can't be notable and it's process of creation (or lack thereof) is not yet noteworthy enough for inclusion on that basis.  WP should describe things that do exist, not things that should exist, regardless of how noble the intentions.   7  01:18, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I disagree that this article fails WP:ORG. I do think that the article should make it more clear that this is only a proposed organization. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RadManCF (talk • contribs) 01:22, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's a serious proposal that merits encyclopedia coverage, ther are plenty of reliable sources, and there is rather too much material to be covered comfortably in any other article I've considered (Merkel, Sarkozy, the Copenhagen conference article). --TS 08:21, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - At this point, there are no sources which establish notability. All current references in the article talk about a Global Environment Organisation, but none of them talk about the Global Environment Organisation.  Titles of references include "Sarkozy calls for a global organization on the environment" and "Why we need a World Environment Organization".  So, there is currently no "Global Environment Organisation", nor is there a solid, verifiable plan to create one.  There may be a global movement towards creating an international organization focused on environmental issues, but there is no evidence that it will be called the "Global Environment Organisation".  WP:CRYSTAL is clear on the inclusion of speculation and future events.    talk 13:25, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - A careful merge and redirect to United Nations Environment Programme could be feasible.   talk 13:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - If people are questioning whether a serious proposal raised by several European leaders is "notable", perhaps the usefulness of the term "notability" should be reconsidered. The subject certainly does merit an article. --TS 14:57, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment – So there is no further confusion, in the context of this discussion the term notability refers to notability as defined by Wikipedia.  ttonyb  (talk) 16:07, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I know what you're referring to. "Notability" is a guideline, not policy, a fact that many people forget. The occasional exception, I should think, applies to even the most draconian interpretation of "notability", where we're discussing a proposal widely discussed by heads of state, prime ministers and foreign secretaries.  And if it doesn't then the "notability" guideline should be ignored. --TS 21:04, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment – I believe rules are made to be broken; however, this proposed organization has not been shown to have been discussed by heads of state. The discussion of a general overseeing Global Environment Organisation by heads of state might be notable as a separate article, but this article is about a specific non-existent organization.   ttonyb  (talk) 21:23, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - While the organization obviously does not yet exist, the amount of international discussion and commentary on the creation of such an organization makes it notable enough for an article, in my opinion. Nutiketaiel (talk) 14:27, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment If this article is supposed to be about global environmental organizations in general (as opposed to a specific organization called the Global Environment Organization), shouldn't it discuss the various various existing international environmental organizations?   talk 01:38, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. The article is essentially speculative and misleading - there hasn't been any sort of concrete proposal, much less a serious organization. The article makes it sound like an advanced proposal, which it is not - at this point, it exists purely in terms of punditry and speculation, and has yet to become coherent. It is unclear that it ever will. Ray  Talk 20:08, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep It doesn't matter if this organization exists or not, do you care about our future? About the future of life, humanity and nature? THEN LET THE ARTICLE LIVE! User:Glenridge. —Preceding undated comment added 20:29, 11 December 2009 (UTC).
 * Comment – How does this meet the criteria in WP:ORG?  ttonyb (talk) 20:59, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete As per 7, SnottyWong, RayAYang and nom. - James xeno (talk) 05:46, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The fact that this article is referring to the subject of talks happening RIGHT NOW in Copenhagen should be enough to confirm its notability - at least for the duration of COP15. People will be interested when the topic is raised and should at least have a reference point. I'm planning on watching what live broadcasts I can and I'll update the page accordingly. --Sterlingpearce (talk) 07:13, 15 December 2009 (UTC) — Sterlingpearce (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment – I'll ask again, how does this meet the criteria in WP:ORG? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ttonyb1 (talk • contribs)
 * Comment - Sterlingpearce, tell your sockpuppetmaster that notability is not temporary.   talk 12:21, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment As my own "sockpuppetmaster", I would believe that if a topic is notable at one time, that cultural relevance would persist into the future. I would equate it to an upcoming album title... while the official name of the future "Global Environment Organization" may change, the tracks have already been recorded, so to speak. Sterlingpearce (talk) 20:27, 15 December 2009 (UTC) — Sterlingpearce (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Comment – However, just saying there should be an album (or in this case an organization) is not notable.  ttonyb  (talk) 20:35, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment ...Even if the organization is proposed and called for by the people intent on creating it? Sarkozy is in Copenhagen now pledging money to revamp the current spending on environmental issues. If a GEO isn't announced in talks this week, I have no problem ceding to the proposed deletion. Sterlingpearce (talk) 20:50, 15 December 2009 (UTC) — Sterlingpearce (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Comment Sterlingpearce, do you realize that your justification is a textbook case of WP:CRYSTAL? How about this instead: we delete the article, and if the GEO is announced in talks at Copenhagen (or at any other point in the future), then we'll re-create the article.  That's how WP works.  Oh, and if you want to explain why you created this account solely for the purpose of commenting on this AfD, but somehow simultaneously you're not a sockpuppet, I'd be interested to hear how that works.    talk 22:54, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment I can't even figure out why you (or maybe a few of you, but it seems likely only one) are insisting on calling this GEO. Some of the sources suggest it would be a WEO. In any case it doesn't seem likely you are going to be able to predict the name of any entity that is created as a result of the Copenhagen Summit. Beach drifter (talk) 00:16, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment Snotty, I'd venture that the discussion of my alleged sockpuppetry is not relevant to this discussion, so please stop. Also, Drifter, it does seem likely that the organization wouldn't be called GEO, as they already produce a document called the "Global Environment Outlook" with the acronym GEO and that would just get confusing. As noted in the WP:CRYSTAL so eloquently pointed out by Snottywong, if the current references in the article are not deemed sufficient, then the decision for deletion has already been made. My only hope was to present information about the transition that seems about to occur between UNEP and the "hypothetical" organization that will replace it. Sterlingpearce (talk) 04:17, 16 December 2009 (UTC) — Sterlingpearce (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment Now, now, children. (As I once said to a CEO and a teacher at a committee meeting...) GEO or WEO - it ain't there yet. Peridon (talk) 21:13, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete without prejudice WP:CRYSTAL. What the organisation is to be about is irrelevant. It does not exist, and its creation has not been agreed. 'Calls for' rather than 'director appointed' put it under CRYSTAL. (BTW I was a conservationist and environmentalist before the term environmentalist came into most people's vocabulary.) When the ink is dry on the paper, and they're arguing about where the office is to be, try again. When the office is up and running, then OK. Peridon (talk) 21:00, 15 December 2009 (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.