Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Global Trust Council (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. The delete rationales here were stronger and actually provided analysis of the article and the sourcing, so while numerically it was close, I don't see a strong argument advanced by those advocating to keep it: notability may not be temporary, but consensus on it can change, so appeals to previous AfDs without explaining why the rationale was still valid hold little weight. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:27, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Global Trust Council
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not notable, fails notability requirements, fails WP:V. FockeWulf FW 190 (talk) 17:21, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:45, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:45, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep - Sources are third party and reliable. Though some could be added as extra sources. Has gone through an AfD in the past that passed Keep treshold I see. I have to agree with the past assessdments as well.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:08, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete: There were a couple of published items linked with this organisation's start-up in autumn 2009 (and I acknowledge that these were well-regarding in the Nov 2009 AfD, though personally I regard them as the normal aspirational publicity which any start-up requires to generate about itself), but there is nothing beyond that, not even any notice of its apparent demise at some subsequent point: no evaluations of its work, nothing. The only traces that I can see of this organisation are in a name-check on its former director's CV. The article introduction claims that it "create(d) frameworks for digital transactions" but is there any evidence that this ever actually happened, as in a published framework, ideally one which also attracted notice outside the organisation? My view is that this fails WP:ORGDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 08:32, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   09:58, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Article is written as a press release, references are basically only trivial mentions of global trust council. FockeWulf FW 190 (talk) 19:16, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep Seems to have folded by 2012, but notability is not temporary, WP:NTEMP.  Unscintillating (talk) 17:41, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete The article says nothing about the group other than that it once existed and that a certain Andre Laperriere was affiliated with it. There's almost nothing to verify, and I'm not convinced it was ever notable.  Apart from its website being broken, how do we know the group no longer exists?  power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 04:04, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources. Here are sources already listed in the article or previous AfD: this article, this article, and this article. The subject passes Notability. Cunard (talk) 06:06, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L3X1 (distænt write)  06:11, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete the fact that it went AfD before is not valid reason to keep it. The sources used at last AfD are also brought here again, this is evidence of Temporary notability since no new source are found since 2009 at last AfD and real Notability is WP:NOTTEMPORARY. Second; this article is clinging to inherit Notability from notability mentioning of its directors on websites. Out of the entire 3 sources, 2 are used to reference directors only 1 referenced the subject of the article per se. Deeper look at what the source contain reval no more than mere mention. Hence since Notability is not inheritable this article virtually has no Independent source addressing it directly. Third, One sources is already dead and these are the only sources forwarded since last AfD almost a decade. Using attached news sources to this AfD, I can't find any thing like WP:SIGCOV to warrant keeping this permanent stub falling short of all WP:GNG standards. This is non notable company that only exists and WP:E≠N &thinsp;&mdash; Ammarpad (talk) 13:21, 12 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.