imho the best review of gata's work to date, page-21

I tried to do some serious research, but GATA is not considered a sufficiently serious organization to warrant an entry in Wikipedia, see the notes below from that source. Copying and pasting articles that takes such an organization seriously does not constitute serious research, imo.

Notes from Wikipedia on deletion of entries on GATA:

This non-notable organization has no third-party sources for it's notability Hipocrite (talk) 11:09, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

* Delete Some google hits, but mainly on press releases and trivial mentions in fringe sources. I'm not seeing anything to indicate this is a serious outfit, let alone a notable one.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 22:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

* Keep Worth keeping simply for their legal attempts to get accurate or audited information released about official gold holdings in the USA and governmental involvement in the precious metals markets. Referenced regularly in the hard money community. --RayBirks (talk) 08:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

* Delete Their activities are only notable if other people discuss them. - Eldereft (cont.) 20:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)