Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Global Network for the Forecasting of Earthquakes (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   delete. Clear consensus to delete the article. I note that while there are several keep !votes, the only rationale stated are that the organization exists and that reliable secondary sources are unavailable because of the 'newness' of the organization. However, an organization becomes notable only when it is reviewed, discussed, or featured in reliable secondary sources. Therefore these articles do not satisfy the notability criterion. --RegentsPark (talk) 13:26, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Global Network for the Forecasting of Earthquakes
Also nominated: World Organization for Scientific Cooperation.
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Promotional pages of very dubious notability. One, Global Network for the Forecasting of Earthquakes, was kept after Articles for deletion/Global Network for the Forecasting of Earthquakes, but in retrospect this AfD was slanted by several meatpuppets, also appearing at the very recent (and related) Articles for deletion/Communiqué "Geochange", which was deleted. Users voting "keep" included User:Wosco (the abbreviation of the second article under scrutiny here). Anyway, about the subjects: these organisations are very closely related, and have little notability outside of it. The Global network is mentioned in one article on Google Scholar, hosted by wosco.org, while wosco itself is mentioned in two articles, one by themselves and one by Elchin Khalilov, the President of the Network and vice-president of wosco, and hosted on elchin.org. So there are no Google Scholar articles even mentioning this earthquake forecasting institute. or this organization... Google News isn't much better, with one article for wosco, which sadly seems to unavailable, and 5 for the Global Network. Note how in the article on the Global Network, there are many "independent sources", including wosco.org, and many sources about Khalilov and his Atropatena system, but not about the Global Network. Note how also the Global network is supposedly an independent source on the Wosco article... The fact that all listed "main publiations" are by Khalilov is telling. I have no idea whether all this is a scam, a one-man project whio has been able to convince some governments to spend money, or the beginning of something truly scientific, but the fact that it has received extremely little attention and that all of it is based on a group of organizations circling around Khalilov is dubious. The site of Wosco is rather telling: featuring the now deleted Geochange, the Global Network, a program for seismic-safe building (featuring Khalilov), and a site for a mineral which promises "antistress, rejuvenation and immunization", from the company “INTERGEO-TETHYS”, with president Khalilov... All mentions of the International Academy of Science (Commission for Health and Ecology) should be taken with a grain of salt as well, Khalilov is the vice-president of this... thing, which has made three publications, two of them by Khalilov, and where the "news" on their site is nearly one year old and all about Khalilov and the Network.

All of this is simply a walled garden of self-congratulatory articles based on a number of sites and organizations (with really "big" names, I'll grant you that) by the same person. No evidence that any independent scientific source takes this serious has been found, and the mainstream sources aren't really convincing either. Promotional articles which shouldn't be hosted on Wikipedia.Fram (talk) 13:07, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as aggressive advertisement for a non-notable and scammy-looking organization, per exhaustive nom. Since there is a history of sockpuppetry here, the closing Admin would be well-advised to go beyond counting the Keep/Delete votes. / edg ☺ ☭ 13:56, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete both, basically per nom, who has done great work in showing their non-notability. There is obviously some relentless promotion going on here, but as for coverage in legitimately independent sources, not so much. - Biruitorul Talk 15:30, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note, I have made a little search on google you can see the notability. Elm478 (talk) 09:24, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete, per well-argued nom. Nsk92 (talk) 16:27, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, I nominated it here last time and my reservations at that time stand, note that all the photos in the article were taken by the main editor of the article, User:Ismail Valiyev, indicating that he works for one or other of these organizations.Mikenorton (talk) 16:48, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - AfD is not for settle scores. To vote for or against wikipedia needs objective reasoning neutral people. Elm478 (talk) 09:51, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete Per nom. These organizations are not notable in the least and they appear to be a one man show. They "Contact Us" pages on their respective websites have the same addresses and phone-numbers.--Adam in MO Talk 17:20, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note It does not give you the right to remove part of the article Elchin Khalilov.  Elm478 (talk) 09:24, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - 37 hits. Appears to be non-notable outside the organization. There appears to be a consensus to delete. T3h   1337   b0y  18:05, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Per nom. Circle-jerk notability is just a circle-jerk, not notability.Mtiffany71 (talk) 19:08, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Verified for myself nominator's claim of circular dependence of notability ('circle-jerk notability') for GNFE and WOSCO. And we can add a new pseudoscientific outfit to watch out for too, 'IC Geochange.' All Google search results (ALL!) for GNFE are links to sites owned by WOSCO, IC Geochange, or even GNFE itself (but operating under a different domain name, eg, 'http://www.seismonet.org/'') and even one site which claims affiliation with NATO (http://www.sfp-982167.org/), neato! Has the NATO logo and everything! Mtiffany71 (talk) 23:28, 17 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete There is a lot of fluff in the article, but I can't see any independent secondary source with an indication that WP:ORG is satisfied. Johnuniq (talk) 04:30, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: At me unpleasant feeling, that all statements have no relation to Global Network for the Forecasting of Earthquakes and are based on personal hostility to its head Prof. Elchin Khalilov. I have checked up references on Global Network For The Forecasting of Earthquakes and GNFE and have found out many independent references in different languages in newspapers and on Websites not concerning in Prof. Khalilov: In English, Russian, Turkish, Kazakh, Ukrainian, Pakistan, Indonesian and others. I think, that for Wikipedia publication language does not matter. Look statistics - to this article the big interest. I think, that article is desirable for keeping. 217.168.176.3 (talk) 09:07, 17 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - • Sefer Ibrahim 16:09, 17 July 2010 (UTC) — Sefer ibrahim (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * See WP:JUSTAVOTE. Nsk92 (talk) 11:18, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * NOTE: a new editor has left a !vote on the talk page . What is the standard procedure? Active Banana (talk) 16:17, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the user was obviously confused. I am copying below his/her comment from the talk page. Nsk92 (talk) 16:52, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: Dear Colelagues, GNFE is a newly established organization, which aims to develop further the science of earthquake prediction. Scientific basis of articles are the case of braweness of its creators and followers to disseminate this information and helpraise world awareness on eathquake prediction options, which is essetially impportant in era of increase of nautral cataclysms. I vote for keeping both sites. Sincerely, Nilay Azklioglu, seismologist — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nilayazakli (talk • contribs) —  Nilayazakli (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete I can't see any evidence of WP:ORG being satisfied. Stephen (talk) 21:09, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per exhaustive nom. No evidence of notability. In particular, just 2 GS hits altogether, both of which are self-published and uncited PDFs. No GN hits. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 23:29, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Not notable, almost all sources are self-published. Secret ant (talk) 09:22, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, no sign for notability yet. May be later. --Manco Capac (talk) 09:25, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Dear friends! we have to say THANK YOU this organization for the work! I am a scientist from Moscow and I know president Prof. Khalilov. He is great scientist. if you want I am ready to send to all who wish to magazines and articles about the global networks ana Elchin Khalilov. is a very serious international organization!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.243.3.186 (talk) 12:36, 20 July 2010 (UTC) — 80.243.3.186 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep Organization appears to actually exist, as per home page and numerous scientific publications. Article, while in need of cleanup and removal of self-propaganda and not relevant photos, is referenced. Charges of non-notability are POV. --MChew (talk) 14:37, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Existence does not imply notability. And what exactly are the "numerous scientific publications" you mention? - Biruitorul Talk 18:13, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep Delete - Fram makes very good points, but I do actually believe the organization is borderline notable. Atropatena seems to have several websites on it (including an International Academy of Science website and a Gadjah Mada University research publication ) and while the article isn't exactly ideal, I think it could be cleaned up to focus more on the capabilities of the organization rather than its history. We just need to cut down on the primary sources and avoid the "circle-jerk" references - not too hard of a task, really.  ceran  thor  16:42, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note that the International Academy of Science is another of the same group of organisations involved with Khalilov.Mikenorton (talk) 17:06, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * And note that the Gadjah Mada University source doesn't directly mention the GNFE, is primarily about an Indonesian endeavor, and is more of a blog-post than a peer-reviewed publication. Hardly "significant coverage" there. - Biruitorul Talk 18:13, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Now that I reflect, I probably should have sided with a weak delete. I understand those references aren't really reliable - not really anything in the article is yet - but think that the sheer amount of them shows some degree of notability. Either way, I was canvassed too (by Earth Defender) and feel there is indeed some sort of sockpuppetry going on here. The article isn't ready for inclusion at this point.  ceran  thor 18:24, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete - Unless it has non-self published creditable sources, a much more neutral viewpoint and can actually provide reasons for it's necessity, I am inclined to favour a deletion of this article. --Mithril712 (talk) 18:56, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note Whilst technically being canvassed into looking at this discussion, I have tried to give as unbiased an opinion as possible.Mithril712 (talk) 19:00, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Canvassing alert - User:Earth Defender (another sockpuppet) has canvassed 15 users to this discussion, while the banned User:Ismail Valiyev canvassed 7 on az.wiki. Oh, and User:Elm478 is yet another sock in this saga. They're really getting desperate at Khalilov's institute. - Biruitorul Talk 18:13, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: Maybe I am a new user and do not quite understand all the rules of Wikipedia, but probably all understand the moral principles of Wikipedia. Removing part of the biography of the scientist to whom you have prejudiced, hostile attitude (referring to this discussion) without particular reason for this is contrary to these principles (My contribution to the article Elchin Khalilov should be encouraged rather than blame, because I improve it rather than delete as you do). I also assume in response to your statement "They're really getting desperate at Khalilov's institute" that article Global Network for the Forecasting of Earthquakes and World Organization for Scientific Cooperation your attract negative attention only because of the fact that Elchin Khalilov is present in the leadership of these organizations. Then you should delete all the articles and close all the organizations in which may be his name? Elm478 (talk) 10:00, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: - I think we are discussing GNFE but not E.Khalilov.For you one person can't participate a few organizations?Instead of to edit and format the article you choose the easy way-delete. - --Earth Defender (talk) 06:33, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - Except Elchin Khalilov there are other important persons in GNFE. For example, Dr. Ishfag Ahmad – State Adviser of Planning Committee of Pakistan in status of Federal Minister, President of Pakistan Academy of Sciences; His Loyal Highness Sultan and Governor of Indonesian Special Region of Yogyakarta Hamengku Buwono X ; Phd. Damir Khalikov-Head of the Department of Ministry of Emergency Situations of Kazakhstan, major general; Dr. M.Qasim Jan – Secretary General of Pakistan Academy of Sciences, Rector of Quaid-i-Azam University (Islamabad). --McWikiEarth (talk) 09:32, 21 July 2010 (UTC) — McWikiEarth (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * But are there independent reliable sources confirming that those people are part of GNFE? If you have such sources, please add them to the article: I can't find any with Google. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 23:06, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: I added new sources to the article.These sources prove that marked persons participate in GNFE. Though these sources is not  in english. --Earth Defender (talk) 07:16, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The Bahasa sources, at least, don't mention GNFE at all, nor do they link the indicated persons to GNFE; they simply repeat a press release saying a detector (not linked to GNFE) was installed in Indonesia, and Indonesian scientists are checking to see if it is effective. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 13:36, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep I think GNFE is enough global organisation. Atropatena station is only one of the project of GNFE. This organization is newly established that is why few sources. We must edit this article.But not delete. --FireFox 70 (talk) 17:26, 22 July 2010 (UTC) — FireFox 70 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * You may not realize it, but you are actually making an argument in favor of deletion. You should really read WP:N and WP:ORG. The fact that the organization is new and there are so few sources covering it is what makes this organization non-notable. Nsk92 (talk) 17:40, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I looked at the first link in 'Additional independent sources', which supposedly references the statement "GNFE prediction has proven to be completely right" - I used the built-in translators in Chrome and in IE8, and there is absolutely nothing in the (very short) article that suggests that. Dougweller (talk) 18:24, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep I think there is no question about deleting. We should keep this useful info. GNFE has been given the lead role to plan and coordinate the national effort to mitigate earthquake losses by developing and applying earth science data and assessments essential for land-use planning, engineering design, and emergency preparedness decisions. Shahin Khalilov expert in sustainable development. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shahin Khalilov (talk • contribs) 05:43, 23 July 2010 (UTC)  — Shahin Khalilov (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Nsk92 (talk) 05:45, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: Editor blocked for canvassing inactive and blocked users regarding this AfD. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 07:36, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Struck-through !vote & comment of blocked editor. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:21, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete A public relations exercise of low notability. No independent veridication. References are self-published. SV1XV (talk) 06:14, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete — The article reads like a travel brochure, most of the users !voting keep in this discussion are neither legit nor aware of the nature of AfD, the article defenders actively tried to skew the AfD in their favor. No offense to the ARS, but you'd have better luck rescuing a standalone article on Roselia, since I don't see any way on God's green earth this AfD will end as anything but delete given all the chicanery. —  Jeremy  ( v^_^v  Carl Johnson ) 07:25, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Still I'm a new member to Wikipedia. I really have found reliable and interesting info about the earthquakes which are actual nowadays. I think GNFE info should be kept.--SCN21 (talk) 10:48, 23 July 2010 (UTC) — SCN21 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete per nom. Walled garden, no notability. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:22, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep In GNFE 4 countries participate. And there are enough sources. Qazaxstan, 1, 2,  3, Indonesia, 1, 2, 3, Pakistan,1, 2 3.--Phd.Earth Science (talk) 12:06, 23 July 2010 (UTC) — Phd.Earth Science (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Keep I'm completly amazed with a work that GNFE has done. I support the GNFE ideas and works. They are working for security of our nation. So let's support them. Phd. Geology —Preceding unsigned comment added by John Martini (talk • contribs) 12:37, 23 July 2010 (UTC)  — John Martini (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

The articles themselves have great importance in the world wide (for all search requests issued by the result of responding to all questions raised in the discussion). An undeniable fact (which shows listed references) — That the Atropatena prediction station has been installed and operates in Indonesia, Pakistan, Azerbaijan, and it is said that the organization trusted by the government of the host. Besides all this against a background of increasing seismic activity earthquake prediction is becoming one of the most topical issues in the world of science. I am a man who versed in seismology can safely say that there is no analogue of this system. All this shows the relevance, importance and notability of the articles. I believe that the articles should be keep for further editing. I am ready to spare all effort in improving the articles. Elm478 (talk) 12:53, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep In the deal the article was nominated in AfD due to the presence in them name of the famous scientist in the field of seismology professor E. N. Khalilov. As I understand the principles of Wikipedia is - not allow personal dislike to any person.
 * 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.