Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/G5 (education)

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. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:46, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

G5 (education)

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

dont feel this a serious grouping, is referenced extremely poorly, doesn't even highlightidea of reseach funding, and offers extremely little. Relies simply on a newspaper article back in 2004, we no evidence this grouping exists today, which remember was nothing to do with pure reputation, was about raising research funding at the time Edinburghgeog (talk) 00:39, 3 December 2011 (UTC) Note: The proposer is an indefinitely blocked sockpuppet of the also indefinitely blocked Edinburghgeo, and also has a likely conflict of interest due to a close connection with the University of Edinburgh and a perception on their part - in my view wholly unfounded, but they appear to see things rather differently - that the G5 grouping and the presence of an article about it in WP is somehow against the interests of the University of Edinburgh.Rangoon11 (talk) 23:20, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - more than meets GNG as a result of third-party sourcing. The article could do with a bit of expansion but that is not a reason for deletion. It is worth noting that the proposer has been frantically trying to undermine the article through the deletion of citations - including through the use of sock puppets - and having not been satisfied with the outcome of that approach has come here. Rangoon11 (talk) 02:05, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : No significant coverage outside the newspaper that created the term so therefor fails WP:GNG as the newspaper that creates the term cannot be seen as interdependent to the term. Mt king ^(edits) 02:16, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not true, even as regards the Times Higher Education - the THE article is very clear that the G5 is not an abstract concept invented by the THE, but an actual grouping which it is reporting on. Even the name 'G5' was not a creation of the THE. The THE was merely the first to report the existence of the grouping, which for obvious reasons wished to remain low-key and therefore did not telegraph its existence to the world.Rangoon11 (talk) 02:43, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note : Should an admin feel inclined to delete this as WP:G5 to WP:DENY the block evasion, I have no problem with that despite my !vote above. Mt king ^(edits) 02:18, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : agree very much with previous comment, the references are not acceptable, are primarily newspaper references, seems an extremely minimal grouping to get a wiki article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frantic1 (talk • contribs) 10:27, 3 December 2011 (UTC) Struck comment from duckish sock of nominator. WilliamH (talk) 13:17, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : on balance would say delete, references not great, article doesn't really mean a lot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maria1357 (talk • contribs) 17:00, 3 December 2011 (UTC) Struck comment by (yet another) sock.Rangoon11 (talk) 22:00, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. —Rangoon11 (talk) 17:44, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Rangoon11 (talk) 17:46, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Rangoon11 (talk) 17:48, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see clear evidence of use as an enduring term. Note that G5 (education) is not a suitable Google search phrase for this - try G5 university etc. I do not see the benefit in deletion, as it is a reasonable topic for users to search for and an explanation of what it refers to and how it originated is not a simple dicdef. --AJHingston (talk) 23:18, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 December 4. Snotbot t • c » 16:46, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Appears to just pass WP:GNG however this article could do with some expansion. IJA (talk) 10:30, 6 December 2011 (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.