Madkoch
G20 Research Group
editYou're right about that. I changed the name to G-20 research group only because all other "G-20" related articles have a hyphen in them so I thought I could keep a similar naming convention. Unfortunately I don't know how to revert moving pages either--it's actually a very long process and requires approval. I'll try doing so if I find out how to do it. Eelam StyleZ (talk) 03:08, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
The article G20 Research Group has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- Unreferenced article that fails to assert notability of the subject and 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
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. AussieLegend (talk) 08:54, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, AussieLegend, for letting me know there are problems with the G20 Research Group entry. I'm afraid I need some help, though. Can you please explain what "notability" means? Also, I don't really understand what the conflict of interest is. Can the author of a page cannot be affiliated with the subject? If my goal, both as managing director of the G20RG and as the author of the WP entry, is to provide straight facts without embellishments or qualifications, I don't see any conflict. As for citations, 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. Hope that suffices! Thanks.
- Notability determines whether or not a subject should have its own article. The general notability guidelines require that a subject has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. As far as I can determine, that is not the case with either the G8 or G20 research groups, especially based on your acknowledgement that most information is self-published. Wikipedia's aim is to be neutral in its treatment of subject matter. If you have a close relationship with a subject, then you may have a conflict of interest in editing, and certainly creating, an article about a particular subject. Given that sources outside your organisation are limited, it's difficult for others to determine whether the information that you are presenting is just "straight facts without embellishments or qualifications". --AussieLegend (talk) 05:15, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Hmm. This becomes tricky. I created the WP articles so that people who looked up the G8 and G20 Research Groups would have an easily accessible description (since the "about" pages on our website are not as instantly accessible as WP is!). Both groups have a solid international reputation and are relied on by governments, NGOs, policy wonks etc., for their analysis and background on the G8 and G20, and because are both essentially one-stop shopping for archival information about the two groups (as in, all their official statements, for example). Both get cited frequently (see, for example, the WP articles for the G8 and G20, which both draw on information published on the G8 and G20 Information Centre websites). They are both based in an academic institution and are not seeking to profit from their endeavours: they are a form of public information and education. When I said there isn't much written *about* either one, it's true -- there has been the occasional newspaper article like the one I cited in the Toronto Star on the G20RG page, but basically if you Google "G20 Research Group" or "G8 Research Group" you'll see our people being quoted all the time. And I could probably get a bunch of written testimonials from think tanks, government officials, etc., who rely on the two websites. But we're not the subject of articles in and of themselves, which makes it difficult to document us. When I referred to stuff we'd published ourselves, the only thing we've produced that talks about us as such are those "about" docs; the rest of the stuff on our websites are material we have collected or produced. So this raises an interesting problem about documentation: how does one document something that has not yet been documented! (Even though the G8RG has existed since 1987 and the G20RG since 2008.) Funny problem, eh? However, since our websites exist and people can find out about us there, if WP insists we don't qualify, then I guess we have to allow ourselves to be deleted. Madkoch (talk) 15:26, 11 August 2010 (UTC)