Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Global Exchange

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 keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:14, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Global Exchange (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems to have lack of notability (WP:GNG and WP:ORG) as also verifiability (WP:V). Article is poorly sourced and based largely on the organization's website. It has been tagged for this issue since June 2009. There are some independent sources but they are they are insufficient. This reference is about a single event which linked to the Global Exchange by stating that thse two activists are associated with the Global Exchange, not that it was action by the Global Exchange itself. The WTO mentions Global Exchange directly; however, as an alone it is not enough. That source seems to mention the Global Exchange but it is not probably a depth coverage. Search by the term "Global Exchange" gives a lot of results but most of them are not related to this organization. I was not able to find a significant sources by more specific searches. These sources may exists, of course, but at the moment I am not convinced. Beagel (talk) 13:45, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – As an organization that's been around for 30 years, we have to consider that sources exist that aren't online. That said, the organization is covered in-depth in both this VOA article and this book chapter with significant mentions in this USA Today article, and this discussion of their work from CS Monitor with some briefer mentions of their work in the Guardian, Hometown Pasadena, and Worldwatch. -- irn (talk) 19:16, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:20, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per irn and the coverage in reliable independent sources they documented. FloridaArmy (talk) 15:03, 20 January 2018 (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.