Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Global Literacy Project

: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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:34, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

=[[Global Literacy Project]]=

:{{la|Global Literacy Project}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Global_Literacy_Project Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|Global Literacy Project}})

The article has a few references (but not very detailed or linked) so I would've let this one pass but my searches (News, Books, browser, Scholar, Newspapers, highbeam and thefreelibrary) found nothing good with the best results [http://www.highbeam.com/Search?searchTerm=Global+Literacy+Project+New+Jersey here] and [http://www.thefreelibrary.com/_/search/Search.aspx?SearchBy=0&q=Global+Literacy+Project+New+Jersey&Search=Search&By=0 here] (not exactly in-depth and significant coverage). There's also no obvious possibility of improvement and no good target for moving (this has surprisingly stayed around quietly since November 2004). SwisterTwister talk 19:58, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 20:52, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 20:52, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Delete just another organization trying to raise funds here?, refs are four dead links and two alleged off-line sources, no in-depth coverage anywhere, problems with WP:V, anyway fails WP:ORGDEPTH Kraxler (talk) 16:27, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ☮JAaron95 ^Talk 17:53, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Uncertain. "Just another..." can be used to denigrate anything notable or not. But I cannot tell if the refs are more than mere listings. The best information, as usual, is a financial report [http://www.guidestar.org/PartnerReport.aspx?Partner=networkforgood&ein=35-2158872] -- they have a total of $1.5 million budget, , which is of borderline significance. The relevant size would vary by subject field, and in this area some of the organizations are very small, so they might be significant.

::::I was sure that "Just another..." means that there are many, and this is one of them, without any characteristic that would distinguish it from the others. I was not aware that it could be used to denigrate anything. Kraxler (talk) 02:54, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:35, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Delete per nom and Kraxler. Searches showed nothing to meet notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:37, 20 August 2015 (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.