Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Global Policy Advisors

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. Sourcing concerns not addressed. Shimeru 05:18, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Global Policy Advisors

Global Policy Advisors (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

disputed speedy, disputed PROD for non-notable consulting firm that makes no assertion of notability, has no references, and has shown no signs of improvement since creation in Feb-06. any cleanup tags placed on the article are repeatedly removed by anon. IP addresses. delete Cornell Rockey 17:01, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Cornell Rockey: Wiki policy states: "Advertising: Articles about companies and products are acceptable if they are written in an objective and unbiased style." Where in the current article do you find objectivity or bias? M nye 17:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The article has been improved, and the concerns have hopefully been addressed. While, as in all wiki articles, this page, too, is still a work in progress, it should not be deleted altogether just because it is yet to be "perfect." M nye 18:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep The article has been improved, and the concerns have been addressed. Dragomiloff's "Delete" should not be considered because, based on his/her signature timing, he/she likely had not yet seen the improvements made to the article. M nye 18:48, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

    • Comment - I posted the above at 18:29. The last edit to the article was made at 18:18. Dragomiloff 18:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Response to Comment Fair enough. Thank you. M nye 18:57, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
  • comment the concerns addressed my deletion nomination have not been addressed. Quoting a random website to establish notabiltiy does not pass WP:ORG, & it is not an established reference. Cornell Rockey 19:11, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete The strongest claim is that a notable trade association once gave them an entry in its directory of web sites. Unimprovable and unsourcable. DGG 05:25, 11 March 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.