Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Global Goods Partners

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. Coredesat 03:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Global Goods Partners

Global Goods Partners (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

doesnt seem to meet WP:NOTABILITY. Reads like a PR piece Hu12 12:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment The article seems to portray GGP as a charity-style organization, but this article discusses a fashion show where they had product. If the article is kept and rewritten, as it probably needs to be anyway, we need to find independent sources that tell us what GGP actually does, as the article was not clear enough to make that point (to me, anyway - maybe I misread it). ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 13:45, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Caknuck (talk) 17:39, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep because Idealist.org is a reliable source. Needs more of the same, cleanup. Bearian 17:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:54, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Per nom. Also, notability is not inherited. This is nothing more than Self-promotion and product placement, which wikipedia is WP:NOT. Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article.--Hu12 23:52, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. nn. Mukadderat 22:20, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete -- no substantive, reliable secondary sources that I could find. Searching Google News and Google News archive turned up a handful of references, all passing.[1][2] --A. B. (talk) 20:59, 3 December 2007 (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.