Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Global Business Network

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. In the middle of this discussion the nominator retracted their nomination so I'm closing this as a Keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:23, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Global Business Network

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

This topic does not meet WP:NCORP. I did not see any reliable, independent sourcing that covered the company in detail and is not just a routine announcement like acquisition. The main source that exists, "Long Boom or Bust", The New York Times, is not independent of the subject since it is a profile of its CEO. बिनोद थारू (talk) 02:27, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. बिनोद थारू (talk) 02:27, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Companies, England, California, Massachusetts, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:15, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – there are plenty of sources even in the article. Garreau (1994) and Levin (2009) provide significant coverage, and Turner (2006) discusses GBN at length. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 13:49, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. At least two out of three of the sources you gave are not Wikipedia:Independent which is required for the notability guideline.
- Levin (2009). Journalist is high-profile and established at Slate.com, but this specific article seems like a promotional/commissioned piece since it only talks about the company. More importantly, it is about 60% an interview of the CEO (not independent). For example, see this excerpt:
  Today, I’ve asked the world’s leading provider of futuristic consulting to help me think about America’s downfall.
- Garreau (1994), https://www.wired.com/1994/11/gbn/. Not independent: First, see the excerpt
  For information about GBN, e-mail info@gbnetwork.com or look for GBN's World Wide Web home page at http://www.well.com/Community/gbn/.
  Second, on Joel Garreau's CV, it's written:
  he has served as a scenario-planner with Global Business Network, and is principal of The Garreau Group – a network of sources committed to understanding who we are, how we got that way, and where we’re headed.
This leaves the sourcing lacking for WP:GNG let alone for the more strict WP:NCORP. बिनोद थारू (talk) 04:12, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The last one also seems to fail WP:INDEPENDENT. For example, see the sentence
Most of all, I thank Stewart Brand, whose openness to this project has been a lesson in itself.
on page 10. Stewart Brand is listed as one of the founders. बिनोद थारू (talk) 04:24, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. More than enough in-depth coverage found in multiple independent reliable sources, including The Economist (1998); The New York Times article by Steve Lohr (1998); the TIME magazine article (2004) by Chris Taylor. In terms of coverage of its reports, there are articles like the one in Earth Island Journal about the GBN scenario planning for the U.S. Department of Defense. Yes, articles that incorporate interview content need to be evaluated carefully, but the articles mentioned above do include independent observations, analysis, and assessment of the subject, in addition to fact reporting and fact checking. Agree though that the most in-depth article of all, the one by Joel Garreau in Wired, does not count as independent, as the author himself was a GBN member when he wrote it. Cielquiparle (talk) 21:54, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree to retract nomination based the new sources brought forward. New York Times article is a CEO profile so not independent however. बिनोद थारू (talk) 00:38, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @बिनोद थारू but you cannot simply categorize articles in broad strokes as "interview" or "CEO profile" and then dismiss them. You have to read and analyze the content and assess what is there. In this case, the article is written by Steve Lohr, a respected business journalist for The New York Times, and when you read it, it's not a CEO "puff piece" like you might find in Inc. magazine; it is analytical and explores criticisms and shows that Lohr took time to do his own independent research and interview other experts for their opinions. Cielquiparle (talk) 03:31, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the excerpt from the New York Times article:

Peter Schwartz is a professional marketer of big, brow-furrowing ideas. By 2020, he says, the internal combustion engine will probably have gone the way of the dodo bird as conventional automobiles are replaced by hybrid cars powered by fuel cells that mostly use hydrogen.

A telecommunications revolution, Mr. Schwartz believes, is coming even sooner. Thanks to big satellite projects, connections for high-speed Internet, telephone and video will be commonplace in six years or so. The world will be wired, inexpensively. By 2005, teen-agers in villages in developing countries will be chatting on video phones as they surf the Net.

By 2010, Mr. Schwartz predicts, breakthroughs in biotechnology and gene therapy may enable science to reverse aging and extend life. The prospect here, he insists, is not merely a prolonged old age but living for decades in one's biological 40's.

Yet these are mere ingredients of Mr. Schwartz's biggest idea, which he calls the Long Boom. Its thesis is that the world is witnessing what Mr. Schwartz calls the beginnings of a global economic boom on a scale never experienced before, driven by waves of fundamental technological change and free-market economics.

Based on how it is written and how it lends all the attention to the CEO, I concluded that it is a promotional piece for the company. बिनोद थारू (talk) 03:35, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's why you have to read the article all the way to the end! Cielquiparle (talk) 04:43, 29 November 2023 (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.