Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Center for European Policy Analysis

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 delete. Ultimately, the lack of convincing evidence to support the "keep" arguments tips the scales into "delete" territory here. Two of the 'keep' !votes don't actually make any attempt to demonstrate that the article does indeed satisfy WP:NONPROFIT, while another explores IAR reasons we may be able to justify keeping, which are reasonable but not particularly decisive. The only substantial "keep" argument makes a case that the coverage by RT and the Washington Diplomat satisfies the GNG. David makes a reasonable argument for considering RT as a legitimate source, at least in terms of establishing notability, and the Washington Diplomat actually appears to be a respectable and reliable newspaper. However, as RoySmith pointed out, the WD article is actually covering an event hosted by CEPA, not the organization itself, so unfortunately I don't see that as constituting "significant coverage" of the article's subject. RT does appear to offer 'significant coverage', but it's in the form of a critical opinion piece. I don't disagree with David's assessment that the RT piece, in spite being in a gray area in terms of being a reliable source, is a reasonable enough source to factor in when looking for coverage to establish notability. However, even if we give RT full credit as a reliable source here, I don't think one opinion piece, bulwarked by one article that covers what is essentially a related but different subject are enough to establish notability. The Gnome puts it well; this organization certainly does appear to be "significant", but it simply does not satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements. There is, of course, certainly no prejudice against recreation if things change or if more sources are subsequently uncovered, and there is no prejudice against userfication, draftification, or merging into another article until that happens. Swarm talk 23:31, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Center for European Policy Analysis

[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)

Article from an SPA is sourced entirely to organization's own website or to non-RS like RT. A basic BEFORE finds a great number of references such as "according to a report issued by [org]" or "so-and-so was previously employed by [org]" but no coverage of the organization itself. Therefore, does not pass WP:CORPDEPTH. The organization's founder is the current Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs, however, per WP:INHERITED this does not grant his group notability. Overall, fails GNG. Chetsford (talk) 03:34, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:46, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:46, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, AmericanAir88^(talk) 10:53, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete, leaning IAR keep: Perhaps WP:NACADEMIC criterion 1 should be considered as extending/applying to thinktanks ("...research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources"), but it's not at all clear that that would be met by CEPA[1]. Another possibility would be if there were evidence of significant coverage of some of their activities including the CEPA Forum. A third possibility would be if there were sufficient offline coverage. On the one hand, it doesn't appear to meet ORGDEPTH / GNG. On the other hand, I know that HARMLESS and a (weak) USEFUL are WP:ATA, but... HARMLESS and USEFUL as this article links several bluelinked people; doesn't redirect anywhere cleanly; and can centralise material that would otherwise be reasonable to have at those members' articles, and that wouldn't nicely crosslink between those members. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 12:16, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:NONPROFIT. Think tanks and the like rarely get any coverage for the organisation as such, only for the stuff they produce. Rathfelder (talk) 12:01, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:NONPROFIT criteria are identical to the criteria for for-profit companies. There is no inherent notability. Chetsford (talk) 06:04, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:28, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KCVelaga (talk) 12:32, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:NONPROFIT and organization is notable, has several notable staff and alumni.--Franz Brod (talk) 16:41, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As previously noted, the WP:NONPROFIT criteria are identical to the criteria for for-profit companies. There is no inherent notability. That there are "several notable staff and alumni" is irrelevant as per WP:INHERITED. Chetsford (talk) 02:27, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 02:33, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are claims above that this meets WP:NONPROFIT, but that requires significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the organization, which I'm not seeing. Most of the sources in the article are to CEPA's own website. Of the four that aren't, two 404. The rt.com piece is an op-ed. The Diplomatic Pouch piece is about a forum run by CEPA, not the organization itself. It's also unclear if The Diplomatic Pouch is a WP:RS; they describe themselves as, an email newsletter distributed to opt-in subscribers and produced by The Washington Diplomat, an independent monthly newspaper. The Pouch covers the diplomatic community, international affairs, politics, arts and culture, and social life in Washington, D.C. Although a complement to The Washington Diplomat newspaper, all content is original and exclusively written for the Pouch. I have no idea what editorial oversight they have, and our The Washington Diplomat article doesn't say much either. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:49, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a significant institution in terms of personnel, scope, and funding, yet it does not meet the notability criteria for inclusion. Online searching scares up mostly Wikipedia mirrors, references to publications by the institution (e.g. here or here), and self-references, but no significant coverage in independent sources. We could mercifully diagnose WP:TOOSOON. -The Gnome (talk) 06:48, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has sufficient notability with: Washington Diplomat interview,[2] and RT opinion. I understand that we consider RT to be biased, because it is pro-Russian rather than pro-American, and that we have concerns about fact-checking, accuracy and completeness based on critics who assert that it is insufficiently independent of the Kremlin and that it is "a propaganda outlet for the Russian government and its foreign policy." Of course, scholars like Noam Chomsky have made a similar critique of American media such as New York Times. [3](See also [4], Media_bias_in_the_United_States#Pro-power_and_pro-government_bias.) I am not suggesting that RT is as reliable as the NYT, or that the OpEd about CEPA is "reliable." However, the fact that CEPA is covered in RT, in my opinion, lends to its notability.

That said, with the few sources available, the article should be cut down to a short paragraph or possibly to two sentences. Another option is to merge with a person strongly associated with CEPA who has an article, but I would rather go with rather keep, because I am not sure it is fair to essentially credit all of CEPA's work with any individual. --David Tornheim (talk) 10:09, 23 October 2018 (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.