Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/G7 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 redirect to John Kirton. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:36, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

G7 Research Group

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Neither this article nor G20 Research Group appear to meet WP:ORG as all sourcing I found is tied into the University. I considered a merger to University of Toronto or the respective G group, but I believe these would be UNDUE there, as well as at John Kirton. A redirect is possible, but these are longstanding and didn't want to unilaterally BLAR so bringing here for larger discussion. Star Mississippi 19:50, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, Companies, Education, and Canada. Star Mississippi 19:50, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Redirect to John Kirton: I did not find any SIGCOV either, but I would not be opposed to merging a sentence or two into John Kirton. Kirton's article needs some cleanup itself, but that is beyond the scope of this discussion. HouseBlaster^talk 01:59, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- My above !vote was referring to G7, but I have just looked into G20. I support redirecting both to John Kirton, for the same reasons. Neither appear notable, and I am very much convinced by nom's UNDUE argument. A redirect (with the possible merger of a tiny amount of content) seems like the best way forward. House Blaster^talk 01:33, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Are you advocating redirecting both nominated article to this target page?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:47, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all to John Kirton as the articles are not serviceable in their current state, with others finding it hard to find independent and reliable sourcing and the articles proper coming off as promotional in tone to me. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 17:03, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all to John Kirton As stated above, all of the sources tie back to the University, I'm unconvinced that independent sourcing that meets NCORP exists. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:37, 9 September 2022 (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.