Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Geopolitical Futures (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 redirect to George Friedman. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:04, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Geopolitical Futures

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Geopolitical Futures
• Articles for deletion/Geopolitical Futures (2nd nomination)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Geopolitical Futures (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to meet WP:GNG. While many sources cite the subject's content, none of them provide significant and independent analysis of the publication itself. I think that the citations in the article (and additional ones on the talk page) could make a decent case for why the subject should be considered RS, but they do not provide sufficient coverage for an article at this time. Restoring the redirect to its founder, George Friedman, seems appropriate. I would suggest merging, but there is no information in this article that would be due to include at the target. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:27, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Politics, and Texas. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:27, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per nom; would have preferred a G4, but was declined due to newer sourcing on the talk page, but I don't agree with the evaluation there that that sourcing pertains to the subject itself. Iseult ^Δx parlez moi 00:36, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Having looked at the deleted article, I do think the current revision is substantially different; the old article's references were still worse as they were limited to PR rather than the quoted coverage we have now. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 01:17, 16 June 2022 (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.