Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Center for Planning Excellence (2nd nomination)

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. (non-admin closure) 🌀Locomotive207-talk🌀 23:07, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Center for Planning Excellence

[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)

Kept in 2007 in recognition of their work post-Katrina, but fourteen years on, there's no evidence via BEFORE that their work is notable. A BEFORE identifies only name dropping of the agency, but nothing independent and in depth. I have no doubt this text is from a prior version of their website, but without sourcing I cannot re-write it to be something that isn't a brochure. Star Mississippi 17:52, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 17:52, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 17:52, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unsourced and not notable. Gentleman wiki (talk) 19:43, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - being unsourced is a fixable problem, especially when we have quite a few sources available to help. Agree these are not necessarily easy to find unless you search for "CPEX" and various combinations of the organisation's name, rather than just its on-Wikipedia name. The organisation produces a range of reports and so is cited extensively in government reports and various news articles. But there are a few that provide a bit more detail, like this one. Notability also not being temporary, if it was notable then, we really need a solid case to consider it not-notable now. St★lwart¹¹¹ 07:38, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, cited in many government reports and news articles.Jackattack1597 (talk) 19:00, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Looking through the first 15 pages in a google books search, there appears to be many sources with more than trivial coverage; particularly in relation to Hurricane Katrina and as a national model for emergency response planning at the local level. Also, if one searches under their former name (Plan Baton Rouge) or CPEX, more sources come up. I think there is enough there to pass WP:NORG/GNG.4meter4 (talk) 20:52, 7 October 2021 (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.