Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Global Trust Council


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 03:10, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Global Trust Council

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete. Non notable company. Had problems finding referencesz to baqck up claimsHell In A Bucket (talk) 17:23, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's ever been the problem. I had no trouble finding some notable WP:RS, at least IMO, like this. The problem is the article creator seems to be populating the page with no end of spam and essay stuff. I removed what I thought was advertorial or just plain messy. I also removed the newpage tag when I cut most of the spam. So the AfD nominator may not have been aware that this page has been tagged as in development. Hell In A Bucket, if so that was not your fault, but I do think you should withdraw AfD per the newpage tag. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:27, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  -- – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 19:50, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: I recommend the same course of action that Shawn in Montreal has said. MajorMinorMark (talk) 21:55, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I was fully aware and choose to do it anyways. I am not withdrawing because someone wants to edit their spam soapbox in peace. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 22:44, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * How nice. Well, this is a pretty bad faith AfD, then. Keep . I already added what looks to be one WP:RS regarding the notability of this international nonprofit org and I suspect the nominator could have found plenty of his own if he'd done the slightest bit of WP:BEFORE work . Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:52, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions.  —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:02, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not assuming bad faith to see shit and put an end to it. One source is great, is that all you could find? Sometimes you have to make a judgement call and nip it in the bud, all it requires is cojones mi hombre.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 23:05, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow. Yeah, you're a real tough guy: I'm impressed. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:10, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Hell In A Bucket (talk) 23:14, 19 November 2009 (UTC) Since it would seem to much to expect outside of the box thinking let me rephrase having Cojones. It's called WP:Bold and WP:IARHell In A Bucket (talk)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.  —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:12, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Can I ask that comments are made to be constructive please? In the AFD pages it clearly states •	Users participating in AfD discussions are expected to be familiar with the policy of civility and the guidelines Wikietiquette and "do not bite the newbies" Which is me!, AND If the article was recently created, please consider that many good articles started their Wikilife in pretty bad shape. Unless it is obviously a hopeless case, consider sharing your reservations with the article creator, an associated WikiProject, or on the article's talk page, and/or adding a cleanup tag, instead of bringing the article to AfD. If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD..  I am more than happy to take constructive feedback and help but I do not think that this site should be flagged as for deletionTraceyRoberts (talk) 11:26, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how that you are interested in working collaboratively. If so, why did you remove my edits where I had provided a news reference for the GTC's executive director, replacing it with a link to the GTC's corporate website? While I disagree with the nominator on some issues I think we're both working on the assumption that you are connected in some way with the GTC, and that this is in some way a WP:COI. The unfortunate thing is, I do think GTC is manifestly notable. But the way you are proceeding, you're actually making it difficult for people to help. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:00, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * BTW, I have change my vote to neutral. I think other editors are better placed to decide on this at this point. I will say this: Tracey appears to want to use the GTC article to offer a detailed outline of its policies and procedures, but in a way that would be more suited to a corporate brochure than an encyclopedia article, IMO. My attempts to winnow the article down to an encyclopedic core article were reverted. So I pass. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:15, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

The information posted is a lot of the information I have gained along the way and as I know there are a number of companies who are currently looking at integrating this into their current applications, I just thought it would help them in their investigative steps TraceyRoberts (talk) 14:35, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I am an independent IT consultant who whilst working for a client was asked to understand the GTC ‘model’ and comment on how it could be implemented within an organisation. This proved to be a little more difficult than first imagined, because there isn’t a lot of published information due to its newness.  After spending a lot of time on this, what this could do is only limited by someone’s imagination, so I have and will continue to track this organisation.
 * Fair enough. I've removed the WP:COI and will now disengage. Just bear in mind: this encyclopedia is not a how-to guide and text must be written in such a way that it is accessible to the average reader, not clients looking for a detailed break down. good luck, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:13, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 03:07, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you TraceyRoberts (talk) 12:03, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The key issue of whether this article belongs on Wikipedia is decided by coverage in reliable sources. In this case, I see multiple secondary sources. See this article from computing.co.uk, this article from bankingtech.com, and this article from E-Health Europe. The subject passes WP:ORG. The combative attitude of the participants of this AfD is unhelpful in improving the article. However, I commend for helping the new user with this article. Cunard (talk) 03:00, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep I'm changing my vote back to keep in the hopes that this will allow this long saga to finally come to an end. While I still have issues with the readability of the article, I've always believed the Council was notable, and had added two news refs to back that up. Please, some kind admin, close this AfD.... Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:29, 2 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.