Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Globcal International


 * 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. --Blablubbs (talk) 20:51, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Globcal International

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Fails WP:N, WP:V and WP:RS. The "Secretary General" of the organization, David J. Wright (wiki user Problemsmith) describes it himself as not "registered with any authority" and "not having a physical business location".  There are no reliable sources supplied in the article and none can easily be found on the web. The "parent organization" is listed in the article as Ecology Crossroads Cooperative Foundation, which was also set up by Wright. In fact, it appears that the entire article refers to no more than a set of social media accounts and a few web pages. The Facebook account has fewer than 5000 followers.

The page was created by user Ingenosa. This is almost certainly a sockpuppet account for Problemsmith given the writing style employed when he complained about edits to the article. Wright admits on his user page to having employed multiple accounts in the past ("I lost track of the other accounts I originally have used"). Another very likely sockpuppet is Rokrunestone, who signed up to oppose the deletion of the wiki page for Wright and was promptly banned the next day.. The contribution history for user Shamansfriend would strongly suggest they are yet another sockpuppet.

Most of the supplied references in the article refer to the organization's website which appears to have been constructed solely by Wright himself. The single citation which appears valid at first sight is the United Nations listing, but as that page itself makes clear, "a profile in this database and on this website does not in and of itself connote any affiliation with the United Nations". Barry Wom (talk) 19:39, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:55, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:56, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:57, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belize-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:58, 7 February 2022 (UTC)


 * This is a space a deletion discussion, not a sockpuppetry case. Some of this belongs here, other parts belong at a sockpuppetry investigastion. @Barry Wom Starship SN20 (talk) 20:58, 7 February 2022 (UTC)


 * From Problemsmith: I respectfully deny any and all allegations of sockpuppetry at anytime on Wikipedia, Ingenosa is a person that I knew who died in 2020, and yes I was there when she was collaborating with officers in Romania, Saudi Arabia and the UK when the article was originally written, but it is not sockpuppetry. Rokrunestone was one of the cofounders of Globcal, Dr. Peter James, that was deceased in 2012, he was from England living in Romania and had a personal argument with Wikipelli over membership with our organization who took his vengeance on James by attacking me, still not sockpuppetry, nonetheless I am glad the article about me was deleted, it was a birthday present to me I never asked for from friends and family that Wikipedia took away.


 * I have been involved in editing and updating links and infobox data on this GLOBCAL article, but not really anything else, nor do I believe any major updates or much context has been added since the article was originally written. The organization has seen communicative support from David Rockefeller and others in the past; it was relatively active in the Middle East and engaged in organizing protests of the Arab Spring in Egypt, some of its more notable antics have been suppressed with the removal of several Facebook groups. News and competition for it, are things that have changed dramatically in the past 10 years, the article about Globcal International is more than 12 years old, the organization has had offices in Vienna, Switzerland and Belize, most of which does not appear in the article; it is currently registered with the Sustainable Development Goals program at the UN as well are some of its individual members. Members of the organization one from Nepal and another from Russia were personally involved in writing the Sustainable Development Goals at an event in Switzerland in 2015 to be introduced just months later. The organization was also incorporated in Washington, DC as an LLC from 2010 to 2013, something which I had nothing to do with, many of the things that should be said in the article have not been, because I generally do not edit articles about myself, except on my Wikipedia User Page which is pompous and ponderous. It is an organization that has many actors and several active diplomatic professionals.


 * Yes sure I was blocked on Friday past, for disruptive editing after having numerous relevant edits reverted by the person now making this article deletion request, accusing me of sockpuppetry on a page about me, that was deleted more than 10 years ago now, clearly his way of trying to remove me from Wikipedia, with deceased authors in 3 countries, even David Rockefeller has died. All of these vengeful allegations because an article I was working on became the compulsive focus objective of who clearly panders to Big Chocolate perhaps as a paid editor or maybe just because he likes big chocolate, more than fine and aromatic chocolate, IDK? It is clear he focused on revamping the article during the 48 block imposed on me, appealed and upheld by  who I had complained to about the reversions and being blindsided by the competing editor, something which I accepted as the penalty for my incivility, for the admin that resolved the dispute there were no excuses for my behavior other than to uphold the charge for being uncivil. For me it ended there and I told myself I would not work on the Types of chocolate article any more, because  made it abundantly clear in the following days making over 20 reconstructive edits, that my edits were not and would not be welcome there despite being well-referenced and in good-faith, so is life, perhaps the 1000 chocolate companies all around the world making several billion a year is not notable enough compared to the big chocolate people and their types of chocolate, ok already I do understand that, small chocolate despite being 1000 companies against the 25 big ones just means they need their own page for their own types of chocolate. However, I had never imagined becoming targeted, bullied or having allegations of misconduct or having other allegations thrown at me based on a Wikipedia editor taking personal reprisals which speaks more now about his civility who is focused on, my work or work that I am associated with solely based on my personal association with ideas and concepts that I engage become involved with like chocolate. Whether you can call it a reprisal by Barry Wom to attack now everything I stand for or including activities from more than 10 years ago is suspiciously revengeful, spiteful and uncivil; especially less than a few days after being delivered a penalty is not a coincidence, now has escalated to the equivalent of double-jeopardy or worse, because now I am being investigated, stalked, threatened, and accused by a victim with a grudge to settle making immoral or otherwise dishonorable conduct a norm on Wikipedia all because I defended a few edits with an uncivil tone and approach. It also appears that he is out to do me in with the people I must supervise at Globcal International and all the others that work there.


 * The fact alone that I did not incorporate Globcal International in 2010 shortly after I founded it in 2009, or worked there for the several years afterwards is enough to justify its continued existence on Wikipedia despite some time of inactivity during the past several years. Globcal was on TV in Italy, Serbia and local stations in Jedda and Riyad during my inactivity with it where a UN program was development enhanced called the Stop TB Partnership by its authors. The organization has also been recognized by other world leaders including Barack Obama that aided in starting it in 2009, he still follows us on Twitter; this was all when he had his czars that he fired several months later leaving our contact Van Jones without a job and us without a contact. There are many organizations on Wikipedia that do not even exist anymore, there are others that have not existed for 200 years also.


 * When I told the Wikipedia administrator I would not disruptively edit any further, I really thought that would be the end of it and I was sincere, why I am being singled-out, being forced to have to suffer additionally at the hands of the victim for which I already suffered a penalty for attacking him over reverting my edits is not right and does not make Wikipedia a hospitable place, a safe one or for welcoming to any new editors, something that is encouraged in most Wikiprojects. I am really sorry to have tried to improve the types of chocolate article, please Mr. Barry Wom, will you ever forgive me? I am really sorry to have attacked your Talk page. Or am I destined to continuing unfair treatment by yourself, admins and editors forevermore on Wikipedia? I am not sure what it feels like to be bullied, but this sure does feel like it.  Problemsmith (talk) 04:23, 8 February 2022 (UTC)


 * If any of the above claims for notability are factual, you should be supplying reliable sources for them. Barry Wom (talk) 11:31, 8 February 2022 (UTC)


 * , it is not my goal on Wikipedia to write about myself or legitimize the organization outside of my User Page, Globcal International is a volunteer organization that promotes 'big tent' political positions to address world issues with global citizens (activists and advocates) it started on Facebook and that is where it mostly works since the other networks it engaged have lost users and the failure of Google+. Since 2018 all of our official work uses Google Workspace and Meta Workplace, private networks instead of public. As I said, I am not here to squabble, Globcal International is an organization that has some noteworthy people in their own countries and abroad, some may even have articles in their own countries, the only part important to us is that they are members and what they do for us professionally, which really is not a lot considering they are volunteers and their principle connection is as members that need service to boost their own careers or help them develop their own programs. This is not an issue about notability for an article that was very notable in 2009 or our pride as an organization because our efforts are promoted with sensitivity and humility, this is an issue about creating a dim view about an organization simply because I am associated with it and stuck in the middle with a title and leadership role for the legitimate entity, that I do not personally lead except legally, that you are seeking to destroy and using suspected sockpuppetry as an excuse to appease yourself after I attacked you on Wikipedia by defending edits on an article about chocolate, and that is precisely your motivation for requesting the Deletion of the Globcal International article, it is also and attempt to harm me. As a cooperative all the members have rights to individually claim their ground and project their ideas or roles as activists for their own causes. Two of our activists Ref are very engaged in participating in online conferences and organizing them, some of these online events they participate in are viewed by thousands of people. So let's not consider them and the other members of Globcal International that I am not even necessarily overseeing, what is right from wrong, or even consciously examine what is going on here? Globcal International is an independent body headquartered in desk drawer in Belize that operates online as a decentralized autonomous entity, whatever that means to you I am not sure, but it was important enough to me to shore it up by making it an independent subsidiary of Ecology Crossroads which I founded in 1994 in Kentucky so in US jurisdiction it is under my wing, outside the US it is under the management of its independent members. But really the sad part is that you are intending to hurt all of them by taking part of their identity away by having their article deleted simply because I am involved with it and you did not like my edits on Wikipedia. It is all super Wiki-Politics and settling a score with me: it is not mature, manly or civil and I think since I was penalized by a Wikipedia admin, paid the penalty that this matter should not exist. Let's bury the hatchet, withdraw the Deletion Discussion and just avoid each other like good civilians by not getting in each other's way. There are more positive things to do that criticize things that I am involved in just because I choose to be transparent and integral. It is my understanding now since last week's experience that being civil and having an aggressive editing style are not always the best companions. Either is picking fights on technical matters regarding chocolate. Taking away the Globcal article hurts many others more than me, it harms remote indigenous cultures Ref (good reference item if the UN website worked correctly), it is a blow against human rights activists, it will have an impact on biodiversity and climate change; but most of all it harms its members and all the people they serve, it harms their reputation and can make them difficult to find. Without our inspiration or involvement the Rotary World Peace Conference in 2016 Ref may have never occurred if it was not for one of our officers. But really Barry we need to keep our head about this; taking an eye for an eye and another eye and then another is not the right approach to being civil, it is vengeance pure and simple; so I appeal to you to withdraw the deletion request. Please don't make me a victim or target of emotional sentiment or carry this on any further or soon someone may be investigating you, who you are and what you are trying to do with this, just revert the whole thing and it will go away I assure you we, our members and the world will all be better off for it. Or maybe you should be constructive and edit these references here into the Globcal International article to demonstrate that you are a good Wikipedia editor and not someone out for revenge based on an unrelated incident last week. Problemsmith (talk) 15:29, 8 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Another wall of text and still a failure to provide decent reliable sources to demonstrate the organization's notability.


 * "This is not an issue about notability for an article that was very notable in 2009"
 * The article was as notable in 2009 as it is today. It was tagged in 2011 for failing notability and requiring additional citations . These tags were removed without any improvement to the article by none other than Shamansfriend . Barry Wom (talk) 16:03, 8 February 2022 (UTC)


 * , sorry, not sure who Shamansfriend is exactly? It could be any one of several people that were working in our office in Caracas in 2013, when we had an office in Caracas. People were calling me the 'Shaman' around that time after buying Ekobius and establishing an agreement with Indigenous people shortly before then. I did not mount a wall of text to have all the other points disregarded or continue. Here I gave you two notable references about one of our members and a reference about another. Putting a new hatnote on the article perhaps would have been enough to inspire someone to make some new constructive edits, but deleting it based on suspicion of sockpuppetry following a wrong perpetrated by me against you, is what is being discussed from my perspective, and the vindictive nature of these actions. Most of the work performed by international NGOs today goes unnoticed due to the level of risk in places like Honduras and Mexico where people die defending ideas about the environment and their journalism. It is not my job to create a paper or digital trail so that people know everything about what we do or to cite all of our accomplishments. It is my job to establish the fact that we are legally engaged in international tax-exempt Laissez Faire that are beneficial to the public good and promote the well-being of our clients and projects, that is all I do! When I am not doing that I am doing research and editing websites about historical events 250 years ago. I really don't have much more to say regarding your challenges, except that Globcal did not do anything to you, and you would not be here attacking it if it were not for me attacking your reverts. In other words your personal queries are obviously provoked by my actions, they are not coincidental and they are unwarranted, unfair and immoral. Have a good time and be nice, which means don't be awnry or provoke the 7 deadly sins, but always maintain your honor, integrity and stand up for what you believe in! People simply do not believe in what you are doing to me, nor are the actions justifiable. Problemsmith (talk) 17:23, 8 February 2022 (UTC)


 * "sorry, not sure who Shamansfriend is exactly?"
 * Hopefully someone will soon be along to jog your memory. Barry Wom (talk) 08:18, 9 February 2022 (UTC)


 * DO NOT DELETE - Here are some references to my previous statements for or another editor to incorporate in the Article. The operation, technique and theory to the whole Facebook diplomacy (article that I authored with the input of Peter James) in itself is noteworthy enough because of its size and reach at that time per our members who were 132 when the article first appeared, it was part of our success in those years and our starting point, until people started shying away, engaging differently with images and anonymizing their accounts. P!NK was a member on Facebook as well as were many other celebrities from 2010 until 2014 when that engagement switched to protected verified profiles using a blue checkmark. Africans with smartphones from Nigeria also put salt in the pudding impersonating others, something that continues today. Refs that verify some of previous statements made in my first reply to the proposed deletion are as follows:


 * Obama and Globcal follow each other on Twitter. 2008 - Present Check it!
 * Comments by David Rockefeller on International Diplomacy School of Ireland Article credits Globcal International for the creation of Facebook Diplomacy several years earlier. I spoke to him once in 2009 but that is nothing I need to prove to you.
 * US Undersecretary of State James Glassman commenting on work performed with Globcal International (apparently and purposefully not stating our name) which launched our Facebook Ambassadors development as a purposeful measure and the creation of the term.
 * Link establishing our connection to Ecology Crossroads starting in 2020 with documentation on file with the KYSOS.
 * There are also 3 other references Links 6, 7 and 8 (above) in the section referred to as a "wall of text" above and emboldened.


 * Barry may or may not be aware that organizations like Globcal International are non-state actors when working outside the country, sometimes working and living in harm's way as tourists, until or if they are accepted as landed international NGO officials; this entire effort by Barry can potentially endanger lives, based on developed treaties and programs the organization is involved in to protect biodiversity under the Nagoya Protocol and other diplomatic treaties that we work under. It is also considered an unkind, unprovoked, unfriendly, unusual and abusive bad-faith diplomatic measure being taken against our members that are associated with the United Nations, Mali, Colombia, Belgium and the US, who now want to know who Barry is? I have only been able to tell them that I don't know, I also told them there are no neutral mediators that have contacted me on this matter. I did not create the problem that Barry has tasked Globcal with trying to resolve based on my conduct with him, what a nice time we had today. Problemsmith (talk) 22:05, 8 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete - Of the 19 references, 11 are links to Globcal (including Facebook) which are used 15 times of the total usage of 23 times that references are used (i.e. Non-independent sources may not be used to establish notability from Independent sources). The link to the United Nations page is just registration information similar to company registration (i.e. an indiscriminate source from the same Independent sources page). The Hanifan article reference is from 1916 & 1920, with the last article 89 years before the foundation was created and does not confirm notability or directly relate to Globcal. The Kioskea article just defines Facebook Ambassador and does not reference Globcal (I just moved the citation to the middle of the sentence so it is next to the related content). The Wikibook "Course on the Foundations of Buddhist Culture" does not exist anymore and should ideally be removed. The Newsweek, NPR and Saudi Gazette references do not provide links to the actual articles which made it harder to see what was going on but reading them none of them mention Globcal. In summary, the page as written does not meet notability requirements and should be deleted.Gusfriend (talk) 08:47, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete: Per Gusfriend unless WP:THREE presented clearly here and most if not all primary sourcing removed from article with WP:STUBIFY if necessary and it probably would be. I've a short span of attention. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:28, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete lack of any source information which is not either from the organization itself, or which is trivial in nature. Does not meet minimum standards of WP:GNG.  No indepth, reliable, independent sources means no article. -- Jayron 32 14:21, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete I have had concerns about this page since it was published. Does not meet notability guidelines and, per above, lacks sources to show anything factual to support notability claims. Wikipelli Talk  15:26, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete I see this article is already getting deleted but it does not meet notability guidelines and, per above, lacks sources to show anything factual to support notability claims. I see that there already clear consensous to delete here. Starship SN20 (talk) 15:26, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Starship SN20 not Wikipelli Starship SN20 (talk) 13:58, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete, Per above, the article does not support WP:GNG Alex-h (talk) 16:46, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete - WP:THREE is just a theory on a talk page, but it is a good guideline. WP:GNG, WP:STUBIFY, WP:MERGE because there is too much WP:COI in the article, Wikipedia articles should show balance, not fluff and pomp. On its own Globcal International is somewhat notable based on facts; it was in the US Courts for a trademark infringement case with the Honorable Order of Kentucky Colonels seeking millions of dollars in damages in 2020 and 2021 until the plaintiff recanted and dismissed all the allegations. It is not nearly as notable as its parent organization on similar issues 20 years ago, making national headlines in the US. 1Tr1BeLi7g8 (talk) 18:44, 13 February 2022 (UTC) — 1Tr1BeLi7g8 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --Bbb23 (talk) 19:19, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * On the face of it, this would obviously appear to be from a new account set up by Mr Wright in a last-ditch attempt to save the article from deletion rather than stubifying or merging. Proper links to the supposed facts mentioned here would disabuse me of this notion. Barry Wom (talk) 20:06, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I am unable to verify any of the supposed 'facts' contained in 1Tr1BeLi7g8's comment. As has been said before, and worth repeating now, just saying there are facts is not good enough. If people have them, why aren't they including them in the article? Wikipelli Talk </b> 20:59, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't like the article being deleted, I read lots of information and clearly see the consensus here to delete it, merge it or stubify it because of the notability of the references; simply put there are no solid news references that meet the notability guideline. I also found lots of similar articles marked as advertising which this article is not standing for a much longer time, I do not see any difference except User:Barry Wom not liking me. I have no objections to WP:STUBIFY but I am not sure if I am allowed to remove my own edits or do it myself? Guidance please, there is no clarity that Stubify or removing my edits will change anyone's opinion. Problemsmith (talk) 23:48, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I am not sure that removing a number of your edits would encourage people to keep the page. I think that the best thing to do would be to post some references on this cite that can then be examined for including in the page. Gusfriend (talk) 04:15, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed @Problemsmith @Gusfriend Starship SN20 (talk) 20:34, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * "I respectfully deny any and all allegations of sockpuppetry at anytime on Wikipedia"
 * So it's simply a mere coincidence that new user signed up yesterday to comment on the deletion of the Globcal article and to begin drafting a new article on the parent organization, which was also founded by you? I mean, that's literally the only two contributions they've made. Subterfuge really isn't your strong point. Barry Wom (talk) 09:33, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Please make this in a sockpuppetry discussion, not in an AFD discussion. T does not belong here @Barry Wom Starship SN20 (talk) 20:36, 14 February 2022 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.