Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Global Language Group

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 of the debate was Delete. I hope Wikipedia doesn't suffer too much from this boycott. I guess I'll have to risk it. Deathphoenix ʕ 05:50, 19 May 2006 (UTC)~~[reply]

I am applying administrator's discretion and changing the result of this AfD to Redirect to George Washington University.

I just noticed below that the nominator merged information into George Washington University. As such, I cannot delete this article due to problems with GFDL. Therefore, I am going to undelete this article and replace it with a redirect. --Deathphoenix ʕ 05:53, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Global Language Group

nn on its own. I merged all the information that wasn't there yet into the The George Washington University article already. (I prodded it after the merge but prod was removed without explanation) Hirudo 14:40, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All necessary information about the organization is not merged into The George Washington University. Info merged to GWU is only info regarding establishment and membership. That is all that is necessary on the University page. However, it does not define what the organization does. The Global Language Group page defines what the organization is and does, including, most importantly the languages it functions with. That would be like defining the UN without mentioning that there are members from all over the world. The organization is an important part of the University and we would like to have it added. Other such non-profit student organizations at GWU receive far more attention and do not receive deletion threats (see AIESEC). Please advise what must be cleaned up in order to leave The Global Language Group separate page..

Delete Other such non-profit student organizations at GWU receive far more attention, well that's why this article should be deleted. It's just not notable enough. --Eivind^t^@^c 22:27, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Just because it's not on Wikipedia it does not mean that the organization is "not notable enough." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.143.207.181 (talk • contribs) .
Delete. Doesn't merit its own page, but does merit mention at The George Washington University (where it now is noted). Zaxem 04:11, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It merits its own page just as much as all the fraternities, sororities, and other organizations (such as AIESEC) merit their own page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.143.207.181 (talk • contribs) .
  - Please stop comparing this to AIESEC, which ...is present in over 800 universities in 95 countries and territories. They're not even close to being in the same league. -- Hirudo 09:16, 14 May 2006 (UTC) (Also, please sign your comments using ~~~~)[reply]

To whom it may concern: Please explain why this page must be deleted. I asked someone to clean it up and it was done. If it must be further cleaned up, please note what changes should be made. Thank you. GlobalLanguages 09:38, 14 May 2006 (UTC)GlobalLanguages[reply]

Delete. Unfortunately, cleanup isn't going to save this article. I can't see any reason why this article should be in an encyclopedia. Stifle (talk) 10:38, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let me first apologize for intervening in a conversation that has not, until recently, involved me. I am a Professor and knew nothing about this organization until I read an article in the news this week. Let me first say that whoever was the brainchild of this organization deserves commendation beyond belief.

If I may, allow me to note that Wikipedia is not always highly regarded in the academic field as a credible source. Nevertheless, I encourage my students to reference it in order to gain a more profound knowledge of various subjects.

This organization deserves a page in Wikipedia just as much as any other. The author of the article on the Global Language page followed a more objective tone in writing the article and even wrote with an encyclopedia-like style.

For Wikipedia editors and administrators to attack the article and the organization is outright apalling. The relentless condescending tone taken by Wikipedia staff on this page is enough to turn all of its loyal readers away. One will notice on the homepage that in various languages, Wikipedia is called "The Free Encyclopedia."

The Wiktionary definition of "free" is "Unconstrained...Unobstructed, without blockages."

With this in mind, the Wikipedia staff has clearly made it their goal to arbitrarily contradict their own words.

I recommend that this page not be deleted. I further recommend that Wikipedia cease from patronizing the Global Language Organization and concentrate their efforts on improving Wikipedia so that people like those who have clearly been insulted have less "obstruction and blockages" to their freedom. DCprof 16:54, 16 May 2006 (UTC)DCprof[reply]

Hi sorry to butt in. I just saw Global Languages in the paper and I wanted to say thank you for all your incredible work. I agree with the professor about everything. I think you guys at Wikipedia should be ashamed for being so rude and unprofessional. I just read they have over 3,000 members now. Isn't that like the largest student organization in the country? Either way, if I were you I would not want to offend an organization that can get at least 3,000 loyal members to boycott you. Just food for thought.

hey wouldn't it be cool if the "Free Encyclopedia" really were free? Dude, I can't believe how rediculous this is. The guy from the Global Language organization asked like 10 times for a reason to delete the article, and all you guys can say is that it's not notable enough. If you spent more time helping your users and less time attacking them, maybe you would be more notable. 128.164.213.231 17:11, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable. Do boycott away, it's not that Wikipedia makes any money off your visits, y'know... Sandstein 17:25, 18 May 2006 (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.