Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Centre for Research on Globalization (2nd nomination)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please 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. Many of the ghits I looked through weren't in fact for *this* Center for Research on Globalization (Canada-based), but for similarly named organizations from Iran to the UK. As noted by Dodd, many of these hits are simply republished papers by the Centre itself; while quoting and significant attention paid to these papers by reliable publications could be considered a benchmark of notability, these sites (for example, scoop.co.nz) are essentially blog-like in function. As current, fails GNG, no significant other ways to meet notability established. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:55, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Centre for Research on Globalization

Discussion to run until at least 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Non-notable conspiracy website. No awards, no reliable sources. Survived a previous afd for god knows why. Fails WP:WEB. Peephole (talk) 21:26, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. —Peephole (talk) 22:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —Peephole (talk) 22:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Peephole (talk) 22:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:ORG requires the organization to have been "the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources" that are "reliable, and independent of the subject." None were adduced in the previous nomination, the article mentions none, and a quick google search fails to identify any coverage meeting the criteria mentioned above. I don't rule out the possibility of incidental coverage in reliable sources, or significant coverage in unreliable sources, but on the basis of what I see right now, this organization is non-notable under existing guidelines. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 22:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 134 gbooks hits, 88 gnews hits, and 156 gscholar hits. Since they have many publications, coverage is swamped by references to publications. Some of the hits, particularly in the gbooks, seem to provide enough coverage to support keeping.John Z (talk) 23:31, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many - my impression is most - of the google book results and gnews hits seem unhelpful. It isn't enough that this outfit be mentioned in a source (reliable vel non) - for example, in a byline or disclaimer for an article written by their staff (e.g. [1]) or an endnote citation to a research paper published by their website (e.g. [2]). For purposes of WP:ORG, the coverage must be significant and the organization must be the subject of such coverage. I don't see the searches you cite as containing evidence that the threshold has been crossed. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 23:45, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"most" may be irrelevant to notability, but we just need 2 or so that are relevant, per the GNG. DGG (talk) 00:41, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then it would be nice if someone provided them.--Peephole (talk) 01:22, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I had thought that GNG was a safety net, not an escape hatch. That is, it exists to ensure that every article has an applicable notability guideline, not to override more specific and restrictive notability guidelines that might apply - in this instance, WP:ORG, which is more restrictive than GNG. (The latter requires only that a topic "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject," but the former is more restrictive, requiring not only that an organization "has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources" that are "reliable, and independent of the subject," but that "[t]he depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered." Incidental coverage in one source does not suffice: when coverage in a given source is trivial, "multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability." And "attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability, whereas attention solely by local media is not an indication of notability.") I realize that Wikipedia is not a legal environment, but the maxim of statutory construction that the specific governs the general (see, e.g., Morales v. TWA, 504 U.S. 374 (1992); Gibson v. Ortiz, 387 F.3d 812 (9th Cir. 2004)) seems no less instructive - indeed, persuasive - in this context, too.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 02:06, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

there is much to be said for this point of view, and I might well agree. But the relationship between the general and specific guidelines has never been really settled here, except to consider them as complementary and use them as needed to get a reasonable result. DGG (talk) 02:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, reasonable people reasonably disagree on what a reasonable result is. ;) To the extent the rules reflect actual usage, I humbly propose that the approach I've outlined above is the more sensible one, and while that won't settle the question, following it here will establish precedent for the future as a step towards consensus. It just seems contrary to reason (to my way of thinking, at least) to allow the general to control - to make surplussage of - the particular.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 03:06, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting discussion. I strongly disagree. Not using the "escape-hatch", using particular guidelines to exclude rather than include, easily leads to rather more ridiculous results than using it, and I think saying things are generally notable if they fit under any guideline is substantially the more popular view. I think the extra force or restrictiveness of WP:ORG here is greatly exaggerated - the additional "requirement" is just expanding on the word "significant" or substantial in the general guideline, and treated there too.

And for this particular deletion debate, I was not saying that the total amount of coverage shows notability, but that from looking at the search previews there are particular sources that have enough coverage to show notability under either the GNG or WP:ORG. As usual, something or someone that produces possible reliable sources, like a journalist or publisher, is a particularly hard case to explore because the sources it produces and citations to them swamp the sources with significant coverage on them in searches. Will pick out some from those searches later when I have the time.John Z (talk) 23:09, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you give an example of the sort of "ridiculous results" you think would follow from the safety net theory of the GNG-SNG interaction? I can think of at least one glaringly obvious absurd result that follows from the escape hatch theory, namely that it makes surplussage of the more specific guidelines. It borders on the tautological to say this in as many words, but since it apparently isn't obvious, I must: The mere existence of notability guidelines other than GNG overwhelmingly makes the case that GNG does not override the more specific guidelines, because if it did, there would be no need for any notability guideline other than the GNG. Lastly, as with my reply to Ikip below, I have yet to see concrete, specific examples of reliable secondary sources supporting notability. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 15:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Simon Dodd. But for the love of God, man, don't cite cases in AfD Discussions! You'll freak the mundanes. --MCB (talk) 20:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included on User:Peephole/911TMCruft#Conspiracy_AfD.27s. Ikip (talk) 03:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC) [reply]
Strong keep per DGG and John Z, I looked through many of these references, and they are sound. It is a shame that Simon Dodd doesn't use in this case, his commendable debate skills and intelligence in the pursuit of contributing to this article. Because this organization has controversial conspiracy theory views, I strongly sense that this is simply a POV WP:IDONTLIKE nomination, wrapped in a policy facade. Ikip (talk) 03:28, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? The three references in the article itself are all to the org's own web site. And of the results of the Google searches, the Google News hits are mostly either one-line references or references to the org's press releases or self-published papers, quoting "Centre for Research on Globalization grants permission to use..."; and some of them refer to a completely different organization with a similar name, in Iran'. The Google Books references are also mostly one-line listings in directories and the like. The references are not even remotely "sound". --MCB (talk) 08:53, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ikip, while I appreciate the compliments, I must ask the same thing of you that I was asking John above (and that Peephold and MCB have asked): if "many of these references ... are sound," could you give us two or three specific examples of the references you think are sound? Thusfar, none of the people asserting notability have identified even one specific reliable secondary source establishing notability. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 14:59, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Simon Dodd. SELF-REFERENCES are not what we mean when we ask for non-trivial coverage. JBsupreme (talk) 16:34, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Simon Dodd and JBsupreme --rogerd (talk) 18:15, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.