Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Global Panel Foundation

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. --Core desat 07:26, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Global Panel Foundation

Non-notable organization, citations rely heavily on corporate press releases and marketing material, minor/unreliable news outlets, and a foreign language book we can't verify. Conflict of Interest and self-promotion are probably involved. See this case. - Jehochman ^Talk 14:46, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page because of the same reasons:

Delete for the reasons I've stated. Wikipedia isn't a vanity press. - Jehochman ^Talk 14:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - on the surface, it looks impressive because of the number or refs, but a closer look confirms the comments by the nom. Genuine notability per our guidelines is lacking, and the extensive COI input appears, to me anyway, as a group who is trying to use Wikipedia to establish notability and credibility for themselves (in a sense that's a compliment to Wikipedia, that they feel we can give that to them, but that's beside the point). AKRadecki^Speaketh 15:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both on non-notability. The quoted sources are unnacceptable and irrelevant to the en.WP as I demonstrated here. (I would also nominate on 'stubborness to keep this article COI, vain, bloated and unreferenced', but those are not valid reasons as pointed here by an admin). Note: as Marc S. Ellenbogen was being redirected to one of these two articles, maybe the original article should be reinstated and reevaluated on its subject's own merits. --maf (talk-cont) 16:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would have nominated Marc S. Ellenbogen for deletion too. I think all three things are tied together. Unless some good references turn up, there's no way to create a proper article. - Jehochman ^Talk 16:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per what Wikipedia is not and more. Notes: 1. coi issues have been on COI/N since May. 2. coi spas (partial list in this coi/n section) never went away. 3. Ellenbogen bio was the résumé portion of this promotion (marketing) series. — Athaenara ✉ 23:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as insufficiently notable. No non-trivial coverage of subject by reliable, third-party published sources. -- Satori Son 19:42, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for GPF

Keep for Prague and merge in the GPF I think the sources for the PSIC's notability in the early part of its history are reasonably strong. After about 2000 the evidence starts to decrease, and I have never figured out the exact relationship with the GPF. for the GPF the activities as given here would be notable, but the lack of any real sources despite search (I too gave it a try some time ago) indicates either great secrecy or that they are not quite as important as they think they are. Some of the deleted material on Ellenbogen should probably be merged in here also. I think there is enough for one article. DGG (talk) 02:22, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, shouldn't the article be MSE, to whom the two organizations trace back? --maf (talk-cont) 13:46, 14 September 2007 (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.