Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GlobalSecurity.org
a simple GoogleNews search brings up plenty of "hits", but on closer inspection they all seem to be instances where Pike or GlobalSecurity.org have been cited as a source about something else. See http://www.boston.com/politicalintelligence/2012/11/09/general-and-cia-chief-david-petraeus-citing-poor-judgment-quits-over-extramarital-affair/YTxMrihfXbzgvTfmUCpvKL/story.html here, http://www.ubergizmo.com/2012/11/stealth-fighter-jet-dubbed-as-the-j-31-reportedly-tested-in-china/ here and http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/09/lockheed-fighter-singapore-idUSL1E8M90PP20121109 here. There doesn't seem to be a lot of coverage of the company itself that would help it meet . I query whether Pike himself might meet  #7 (''"...if the person is frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area."'') or whether you could consider the combined expertise of GlobalSecurity.org to collectively meet such a guideline. I'm very much on the fence... The organisation is cited extensively in books http://books.google.com.au/books?id=GxdtLyJZxDUC&dq like this one and http://books.google.com.au/books?id=ReHSixF6ax8C&dq this one as a source of reputable, factual information. There's also some outliers like http://www.revresponse.com/RevResponse-GlobalSecurity.org-Case-Study this case study about the site itself. I would have thought Pike might meet the above criteria but GlobalSecurity.org is a collective of experts who are cited as employees / fellows of GS.org so I think keeping it (with all its experts) is better than keeping just one of the experts, if that makes sense
— [[User: Stalwart111|'''Stalwart''']][[User talk:Stalwart111|'''111''']], 00:23, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:CORPDEPTH||WP:ACADEMIC (Wikipedia:Notability)