Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Global Impact


 * 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. I'll withdraw my nomination; Dr. Fleischman has found enough references to convince me of the organization's notability. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 13:29, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Global Impact

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable. Appears to fail WP:ORG and WP:GNG. I failed to find much non-trivial coverage in third party sources. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 19:11, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep: It's difficult finding sources given the name of the organization. I've found a smattering that supports a "keep" verdict:, , , , . Some have limited coverage, some are of questionable reliability, but the Washington Examiner source puts it over the top IMO. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:42, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 13 September 2014 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 05:00, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 17:24, 28 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep Per DrFleischman it may pass GNG. Dmatteng (talk) 17:09, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * More sources: These are all reliable secondary sources with significant coverage:, , , . All of these are very negative coverage, but that's how it goes sometimes. You reap what you sow. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:46, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * That's fair enough for me; I'll go ahead and close this as keep since the sources you found address my notability concerns. Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 13:26, 3 October 2014 (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.