Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/G5 (universities)

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. L Faraone 01:14, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

G5 (universities)[edit]

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

I think that this article (G5 Universities) should be removed. I can't see why the group should remain when there is virtually no (almost zero) coverage in the respected media, or any university/academic articles etc, apart from the Times Higher Education magazine. I therefore firstly can't see how the term G5 can be seen as independent. If it was a serious/actual grouping, worthy of a Wikipedia article, I believe that there must be at least some broader coverage and use of the term. I also think that this article has been used as a way of indicating these are a super-elite (term which has been used on the article in the past) group of Universities, as opposed to the actual reason given why Times Higher Education supposedly mentioned the grouping. if you look at the list of citations, almost all of the actual content comes from one single Times Higher Education Article back in 2004. I would also therefore argue that this grouping doesn't actually exist today anymore(If it ever actually existed at all), and potentially therefore also factually inaccurate. I acknowledge this has been raised before, but i think its important to note that both the nominator has been blocked for using sock puppets, and also Rangoon11 (for socks/abusive language/edit warring) who created and strongly defended the article. Happy to discuss any points with you. thanksHkong91 (talk) 00:55, 16 May 2013 (UTC). Nomination formatted by Thryduulf (talk) 12:06, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 12:06, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 12:06, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 12:06, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This nomination was not transcluded onto the daily list until I added it.[1] Thryduulf (talk) 12:12, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: the prior AfD to which the nominator refers was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/G5 (education), which closed as "keep" on 11 December 2011. --Arxiloxos (talk) 19:41, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The reasons in the previous discussion appear valid, regardless of sock puppetry and the like. Dalliance (talk) 23:18, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it's a major organization, despite the less than perfectreferencing. DGG ( talk ) 05:51, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

-I struggle to see how its a major organization. It according to just one article met in 2004, and no other media has covered it at all. It also had no permanent facilities or staff, and zero evidence of it meeting since. Instead of it being amajor organization, i'm questioning its existence. According to GNG, multiple sources are expected, this only has one. Regarding the reliability criteria, with only one source, I question how we can be sure it meets this criteria for inclusion Hkong91 (talk) 22:22, 20 May 2013 (UTC) I would also like to make this information clear No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists: The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest. Can a user justifying the articles inclusion please address thisHkong91 (talk) 22:32, 20 May 2013 (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.