Latin wikipedia isn't exactly an ancient source. Without bothering to read the article, why do you think it has a subhead of "Fontes_de_vita_C._Iulii_Caesaris_praecipui"?
I'll take this cum cranulo salis.
You think "cum granulo salis" is evidence for G being an original part of the Latin alphabet, while not being evidence that U was an original part of the Latin alphabet?
Sure, G wasn't "originally" part of the Latin alphabet—until they invented that letter.
What do you think makes G different from J and U in that regard?
Timing. Where do you think G slots in the timeline, relative to the Latin classics?
G dates to the classical period. But, as I pointed out above, it's still intrusive enough then that Caesar's praenomen, Gaius, is written C, not G. The name is older than the letter, but younger than Latin writing.