Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/G20 Research Group

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 no consensus. WP:NPASR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:53, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

G20 Research Group

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

The subject of this article is an organisation of dubious notability. Most of the sources I found are from Twitter, Facebook and other pages directly related to the group. The article was created and almost exclusively edited by somebody who claims to be the managing director of the subect,[1] presenting a clear conflict of interest She acknowledges that reliable, third party sources are limited,[2] supporting my belief that this orgranisation fails the general notability guidelines. AussieLegend (talk) 05:22, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep, The article may not be written properly at the moment, but it can certainly be cleaned up. The article contains external links within its text that can possibly be used as sources. Moreover, this article talks about a subject that deals with world affairs (G-20 major economies) and one of the only notable organizations that is dedicated to collecting primary sources of information about the group. Also, contrary to the AFD nominator's claim, most of the hits on Google about this group are not from Twitter or Facebook, there is only one from each site. All other hits provide ample information which support the group in question's notability. EelamStyleZ (talk) 21:45, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, what I said was was that most of the hits "are from Twitter, Facebook and other pages directly related to the group". (note the emphasis) Clicking on the link above, there are several links to the first page to group's own websites, along with its Facebook and Twitter pages. As regards notability. The general notability guideline requires that the subject receives "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", and I don't see the "significant coverage". Even the managing director acknowledged that "not much is out that is actually written *about* the G20RG, so the source for all citations will be the G20 Information Centre, which we publish". --AussieLegend (talk) 23:09, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, but there still seem to be some secondary sources that describe the G8 Research Group such as this one. A few exist for the G20 Research Group. Maybe a merge of the two could suffice or userfy until clearly written out using available secondary sources. EelamStyleZ (talk) 03:38, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 10 August 2010 (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.