Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Association of Graduate Recruiters


 * 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:02, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Association of Graduate Recruiters

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No evidence for notability -- none of the references are 3rd party refs that actually deal with the organization in a substantial way s  DGG ( talk ) 20:02, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 13 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment The Association of Graduate Recruiters gets quite a lot of coverage in British newspapers - while they only represent a small proportion of British employers, these tend to be the ones cherry-picking graduating students for their own internal training programmes, and the association or its recent publications tend at least to be quoted, and regarded as an authoritative source at least for the views of their members, any time there is a story or feature on graduate employment prospects (and a publication will sometimes be the story). If Google News archives hadn't evaporated, this would probably be a demonstrable keep - but I don't have the time or inclination to work round that problem for this article. PWilkinson (talk) 14:24, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Multiple substantive mentions in  The Guardian show passes WP:GNG. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:03, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:21, 22 December 2013 (UTC)


 * weak 'keep' based on eggishorn's search. LibStar (talk) 12:19, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Couldn't avoid hearing about it or looking out for it when I was leaving university. Multiple substantial reviews. Neonchameleon (talk) 13:11, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep per egishorn's sources. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:09, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 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.