The result was delete. Many of the ghits I looked through weren't in fact for *this* Center for Research on Globalization (Canada-based), but for similarly named organizations from Iran to the UK. As noted by Dodd, many of these hits are simply republished papers by the Centre itself; while quoting and significant attention paid to these papers by reliable publications could be considered a benchmark of notability, these sites (for example, scoop.co.nz) are essentially blog-like in function. As current, fails GNG, no significant other ways to meet notability established. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk) 16:55, 8 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Discussion to run until at least 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Non-notable conspiracy website. No awards, no reliable sources. Survived a previous afd for god knows why. Fails WP:WEB. Peephole ( talk) 21:26, 3 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Many of the ghits I looked through weren't in fact for *this* Center for Research on Globalization (Canada-based), but for similarly named organizations from Iran to the UK. As noted by Dodd, many of these hits are simply republished papers by the Centre itself; while quoting and significant attention paid to these papers by reliable publications could be considered a benchmark of notability, these sites (for example, scoop.co.nz) are essentially blog-like in function. As current, fails GNG, no significant other ways to meet notability established. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk) 16:55, 8 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Discussion to run until at least 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Non-notable conspiracy website. No awards, no reliable sources. Survived a previous afd for god knows why. Fails WP:WEB. Peephole ( talk) 21:26, 3 February 2009 (UTC) reply