Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Global Resource Bank Initiative

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. Mailer Diablo 07:10, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Global Resource Bank Initiative

Undeleted after a DRV dicussion did not produce a majority to endorse. And I am relisting on AFD for further discussion. The article was originally deleted as a recreation of Global Resource Bank (which can be viewed here), in turn deleted as a result of this AFD debate. DRV argued that this new version has some new information. No vote. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:18, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - "GRB shareholders define economics as the science that deals with the production, distribution and conservation of Earth's ecosystem wealth such as air, water, soil and climate." Uh huh. Remind me not to do business with your bank then. BigDT 06:30, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Junk, junk, junk. In case anyone cares, Googling the title phrase produces only 2 unique hits: a blogspot blog and Wikipedia. -- Kicking222 15:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete a notable bank or initiative would be easy to google-trace, cannot find a WP:RS that independently refers to this - possible hoax Crum375 18:06, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete -It is a better version than before, but if it has merit, I'm just not seeing it. :) Dlohcierekim 18:10, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete looks like OR, concept appears not to be widespread or notable. Hard to find much evidence of the importance of this subject, and insufficient external discussion to allow us to verify that it is being covered neutrally (i.e. not notable). Just zis Guy you know? 13:10, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Hoaxy attempt to revive Physiocrat philosophy (I think). ergot 15:49, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. It still lacks anything resembing verifiability.  RasputinAXP  c 18:08, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Calm down What a lot of personal feelings and belifs, please tell me what is wrong according Wikipedia standards, how should merit look like for example? The GRB initiative is no hoax, its a real 3000 people network NGO with homepage, litterature, science reports and UN activities, next will be in sept at NGO meeting in UN, New York. --Swedenborg 05:26, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

• Calm down Uhh, who or what is that addressed to? 'cause I'm not seeing anything that calls for that statement.
• tell me what is wrong according Wikipedia standards WP:OR, WP:Verifiability, WP:RS, WP:Notability, and WP:Not a soapbox. Other than that, not much. --Calton | Talk 05:46, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Funny that it doesn't appear on this list of NGOs affiliated with the UN, nor on the NGO listing on the UN's own site. ergot 15:32, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. No evidence provided that this more than wishful thinking. --Calton | Talk 05:46, 11 May 2006 (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.