Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Global Reserve Bank

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, mainly due to the fact that a lot of keeps were based on the argument that it did not violate policy, except that Calton rebutted most of them, as well as the argument of multi-million google hits.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Global Reserve Bank

nn original research linkspam that is similar to the original Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Global Resource Bank article it started from. Not a speedy candidate because it's not a copy, so here it goes to AfD again. Delete.  RasputinAXP  c 09:24, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Article is following all policies from Wikipedia and is a stub that invite for develop information. Inclusion is the model not delete everything that you do not understand, agree or just whant some more delete trofies in your hat. Wikipedia is not a paper and there is room for info, delete is for nonsens, fact is fact and here is fact just check it up --Swedenborg 17:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Um... what? Bwithh 21:35, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

This AfD from 28 May 2006 is being relisted to achieve a greater consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks -- Samir धर्म 03:00, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - not notable, not encyclopedic, promo/vanity article. KleenupKrew 03:35, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep It's a real enough. I agree with Swedenborg, it's not something that is immediately violating any policies and there is plenty of room on Wikipedia. Needs a bit of fleshing out though, but it's just a stub at the moment. Ben W Bell talk 07:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Only 47 Google hits for what appears to be a novel but isolated idea for creating some kind of environmental futures market. If it catches on, I wouldn't be averse to having an article about it, but... it hasn't. --Hyperbole 08:07, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

32 hits once you take out the wikipedia hits. Bwithh 21:43, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

• Based on a Sceintifical report from 1974 by Arthur Shaw the GRB has its place in history and should be --Swedenborg 20:09, 3 June 2006 (UTC)on Wikipedia for thouse who are looking for this information (It was on Wiki for 5 years as article and was deleted by deletionists with only two delete votes during a very short period) 47 Google hits should be enough? (I got 86 hits on Metacrawler) It is a 3000 person network and have been represented at UN NGO konferences for many years. It is refered to on other Wiki articles like UNILETS and other so if this article does not qualify to atleast have a chance to develop with help of users who have knowledge to improve I have no understanding how Wikipedia is going to survive this Deletionists Vandalisim getting to much impact allready. --Swedenborg 08:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC) - double vote struck out. --Calton | Talk 13:36, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Check out this: http://lellebylle.blogspot.com/2006/06/global-resource-bank-partners.html Feb Meeting Comunity Currency If you have any knowledge in the Ecological Economics field and see the list from this meeting you could not doupt that GRB has a place in Wiki...--Swedenborg 10:27, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

A reference from a Blogspot blog isn't even close to a reliable source.

Well you totally missed the point, and you have no knowledge about those people listed at that meeting right? Ask somone who do and you will change your mind... Check the link from my blog from abowe and there is the source... --Swedenborg 20:09, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Nope, completely got the point: you're saying something said on a Blogspot blog constitutes some sort of firm evidence that what you claim is true. It isn't the least bit reliable as evidence for anything here, even if the claim were "The sun rises in the east". --Calton | Talk 02:04, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

47 Google hits should be enough? Not even close, not even within shouting distance of not-even-close. Wikipedia isn't a promotional vehicle.--Calton | Talk 13:36, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

What a nonsens! ONe is for Deleting refering to Google hits, one is not even within shouting distance of not-even-close.?? what is this, please keep to Wikipedia Policy and keep a desent discussion in trying to contribute!! --Swedenborg 20:05, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

If you want a "desent discussion", try being coherent. --Calton | Talk 02:04, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. "Article is following all policies from Wikipedia"? I'm hard-pressed to think of any it DOES meet not involving libel or incoherence: notability, reliable sources, importance, WP:NOT a webhost, etc. The wikilawyering and invoking of conpiracy theories doesn't help your case. --Calton | Talk 13:36, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

What you mean conpiracy??? This is a try to start an article of someting real (for 20 years atlieast. Article was on Wikipedia for 5 years til this Deletionism Vandalism started, running around puting good articles for delete, then with very low number of voters 2! take away and then all the time refering to that first deleting for not be able to write about something that is of great interest for a lot of peaople right now and a lot more in the future! Why cant articles be started as stubs developed and then bacome of value to Wiki? Deteting is for nonsens, vandalism and pure fantasy or original research. I am going to put more info and links to scientifical reports, UN protocolls and others sources, hoping to get more people who have skills in this subject to fill with info... this is a real Encyclopedic article that needs to be develop please respect and follow Wiki Policies!!! --Swedenborg 20:05, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Repeating the conpiracy theories and wikilawyering even more incoherently doesn't make them any more valid. --Calton | Talk 02:04, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per Calton. Totally nn, only 16 Ghits for what should be a major economic institution, even if it were remotely "in the making" - which it probably isn't. Kimchi.sg 16:07, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Why cannot you wait for few more months before deciding to delete it? I do not know what is the rush here. It is real topic according to Google. Even if you consider otherwise, you should still give it benefit of the doubt. --- Faisal 16:15, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Hmm, 48,600,000 hits for Global Resource Bank -- except that you did the search without quote marks/inverted commas, meaning you get all pages which include ALL the terms "Global", "Resource", and "Bank", AND these don't even the name of the article in question, something you forgot in your haste to recycle the original deleted article.
  • Why cannot you wait for few more months before deciding the delete it? I do not what is the rush here. Why can't you wait for few more months for some kind of proof that it's actually notable? I do not see what is the rush here. --Calton | Talk 16:33, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

You do not encourage a User to have more contribution in wikipedia when you decide to delete an article only on the bases of your doubts (without having some solid evidence). This behavior will not benefit Wikipedia. If you are not 100% sure and have some doubts about an article then you can put a tag above the article (or give it some grace period of 3-6 months for expansion). Instead of delete it. Please be fair and be neutral. best wishes. --- Faisal 17:42, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

without having some solid evidence You have it precisely, 100% backwards: the burden is on YOU to provide some solid evidence of your claims. "Because I said so" is not sufficient. --Calton | Talk 02:04, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

A proper google search for Global Reserve Bank gives only 32 hits and the ones coming from reputable websites are using the term in other contexts and/or hypothetically. Wikipedia requires that articles prove their sources, not that articles are given 6 month grace periods. Evidence is pretty solid that this article is about a nonnotable subject Bwithh 21:42, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete apn ~ trialsanderrors 18:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

* Keep apn? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Swedenborg (talk • contribs). duplicate vote by Swedenborg (talk • contribs)

So a Vote delete asp is valid but my questining the seriousness is stucken? How many of these votes are from smae people really? And whet is the arguments? Where is the Wikispirt? Delete beckose of delte preferences.. stupid and totaly out of order!! --Swedenborg 19:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Not notable. It can have an article if and when it becomes notable, just like any other wannabee. Jll 20:53, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable and appears to be a borderline crank fantasy site Bwithh 21:35, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. It seems that there are no reliable sources for this article and a similar article was deleted recently. A search of media databases for "Global Reserve Bank" came up totally empty. It doesn't meet our verifiability standards. Capitalistroadster 22:23, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, unless some reliable sources are found for the material. - Motor (talk) 22:35, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, too few Google hits, seems to fail WP:CORP. -- ReyBrujo 02:23, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. GentlemanGhost 04:18, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Who are you gays? Looks like someone disturbed the waspnest right? What is your problem? GRB is a NonGovermantal Organization, it has more then 3000 registered members (all can be find and confirmed through the www.grb.net site) The article is a stub inviting users for development, from my understandning there is no reson that articles that are not pure nonsen, vandalism or illegal to have a chance to be developed, this is the core and tha heart of Wikipeida! This nonsen indentification as Deletionist and arrogant, not civilized behavor from young angry white men that feel thretend and are getting of with the small but still kind of power, you can delete (with no contribution or constructive critics, just use that nonsen Rap and copy and past from argumentlists on your sites... this is great shame and leading to Wikipedia cold death in the end, so if that is you goal congratulations but if you are a true Wikipedian lets organize and handle this kind of sublim Vandalism. --Swedenborg 08:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Whoa, there. Avoid personal attacks and certainly avoid generalizations like "young angry white men that feel threatened."  RasputinAXP  c 11:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

So you think that I should avoid personals attacks but ignorant and not seriuos delete votes are ok for you? Ofcource they are helpful to you so then they are ok right? I only want that this and other deleteing furios attacks would be directed to the content and facts... why is there not, looks like a mayority of delete votes not even looked at the articla and that theire votes are from some personal preferences... I really do not expect that this voting will be treated serioisly you are just waiting for a chance to delete this and other things that are not of your preferences... well thats not Wikipedia, at least not the Wikipedia I thought it should be.. --Swedenborg 19:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep It's not hurting anything and doesn't violate policy. --Ephilei 02:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• WP:VERIFY, WP:CITE, WP:No original research, and (in this AfD) WP:CIVIL; other than those minor transgressions, no, it's not really violating policy. And yes, including bogus, low-quality, or made-up stuff DOES harm Wikipedia by lowering its overall quality. --Calton | Talk 02:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Article is valid, encyclopedic and reflecting a Non Governmental organisation with numerus references in and outside Internet. It has also many reference links inside Wikipedia all with accepted and good quality information and references. ---- St Olof —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.202.212.47 (talk • contribs) 16:56, 8 June 2006.

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.