Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phoenix Global


 * 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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:07, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Phoenix Global

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

fails WP:ORG with the exception of recent scandal which is just drawing a bunch of editors with axes to grind. WP will be better off without this article. Jytdog (talk) 23:57, 14 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - while there have undoubtedly been issues with multiple socks, this is a relevant entry backed up with a variety of reliable sources. The fact that an article has had some issues should not be a reason to delete it. 79616gr (talk) 01:54, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * What is notable about them outside the scandal? one-trick pony. see WP:ILLCON Jytdog (talk) 02:30, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I disagree with you, but respect your opinion. Let's see what others have to say, as I am pretty sure we have already had this same conversation on the articles Talk Page a couple of months ago. 79616gr (talk) 15:00, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that's lovely. really. Jytdog (talk) 15:01, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * There's a lot of discussion on the article talk page, most of it because it's hard to keep that article in line with policy. All discussion ceased after the lunatic sockmaster was blocked and/or after WP:ILLCON was pointed out. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 17:46, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * As you and I have disagreed on this article several times on its Talk Page, Jytdog, I was merely being civil and will defer to consensus. Your sarcasm is unwarranted. 79616gr (talk) 23:11, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * it wasn't saracastic at all - I really meant it!! it is rare in deletion discussions for people to be so civil. (that is why i added the "really") argh. Jytdog (talk) 23:16, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Then I apologize profusely and withdraw my comment about sarcasm. If I knew how to strike the text, I would. 79616gr (talk) 23:20, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * good, thanks, and whew. (I shouldn't have commented at all but it was just so nice.) Jytdog (talk) 23:24, 16 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete: Notability_(organizations_and_companies): "Sources which primarily discuss allegations of unlawfulness shall not be considered when assessing an organization's notability per this guideline." I think this is important here. I was considering earlier if taking this article to AfD would be a good idea, based on WP:ILLCON, but I haven't gone and looked for more sources myself. But I wouldn't mind if it got deleted as it is, the article is titled "Phoenix Global" but the contents are more like "The Shady Dealings of Phoenix Global". There isn't much else to write about. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 08:48, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps a solution is changing the title of the article so it is headed more clearly as a description of what it is about. For example, 2015 FIFA corruption case, another ongoing investigation where charges have occurred but currently no convictions secured. The investigation in to Phoenix Glogal is large scale, and as stated previously, backed by a wealth of reliable sources. 79616gr (talk) 23:43, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The difference is that FIFA is very notable on it's own. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 10:29, 17 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - The students of our CCC study group have asked me to comment on the Phoenix Global encyclopedia entry on their behalf and for some reason I have problems posting on deletion and talk pages. The consensus opinion from the group is that the Phoenix Global encyclopedia article is very notable and references are substantive. Also the organization’s activities are broad and varied as reported by news articles from 2008 to 2015. What is concerning is that some students have also reported hostilities when trying to discuss this or other CCC matters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prrabatt (talk • contribs) 00:23, 17 June 2015 (UTC)  — Prrabatt (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment So lots of people with no knowledge and understanding of Wikipedia think it should stay? Doesn't seem like a good argument to me. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:26, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * questions for you at your talk page. thanks. 00:41, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 16 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete Per Jeraphine Gryphon, there's no notability except for all the controversy/investigation. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:26, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - Without the scandal, it seems that this company would have few, if any, reliable sources for inclusion in the encyclopedia. If the story is notable enough to include in the way that mentions, maybe we should start over with a new article, but this one does not meet notability.  Pax   Verbum  02:34, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, I am afraid is correct. While I see where you are coming from, after considering it, I think that if these scandals had their own article, they may not meet notability, falling under WP:NOTNEWS.  Pax   Verbum  01:58, 18 June 2015 (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.