Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Global Catastrophic Risk Institute

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. Apparent consensus DGG ( talk ) 03:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Global Catastrophic Risk Institute

Global Catastrophic Risk Institute (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)

Promotional article by a pair of WP:SPAs. Sources are mere namechecks (e.g. author affiliation for an article which does not mention the subject at all). Google turns up no obvious reliable independent sources. Guy (Help!) 20:51, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:58, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:09, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:09, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• Keep - notable enough. [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7] is enough coverage to warrant an article. --Fixuture (talk) 20:07, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

That is exactly what I mean.

1. [8], namecheck for Baum with affiliation, does not discuss the institute at all.
2. [9], namecheck in author bio of an article written by Baum
3. [10], interview with Baum, namechecks the institute but does not discuss it at all.
4. [11], duplicative of above.
5. [12], namecheck ("He is also an associate at the Global Catastrophic Risk Institute.)
6. [13], Wordpress blog, mentions the institute as one of a number of groups but mainly talks about Baum again.
7. [14], namecheck again, once again talking about Baum.

These sources make a good case for the notability of Baum but no case at all for the notability of the institute. Guy (Help!) 22:05, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:59, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

• Delete The analysis by User:JzG is spot on. For organisations, WP:ORGDEPTH needs to be satisfied and trivial mentions do not demonstrate notability. A certain depth of coverage in reliable third party sources is required which is clearly lacking here. The institute cannot inherit notability from the individual. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:32, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:33, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

• Delete per JzG's excellent analysis of the deficiencies in sourcing - David Gerard (talk) 08:37, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
• Delete as an advertorial page. Sources presented above are unconvincing. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:51, 20 September 2016 (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.