Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caribbean Policy Research Institute


 * 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. There is some disagreement with respect to how trivial the newspaper mentions are, but on balance the consensus is that the coverage is sufficient. (I also note that the article has undergone some substantial revision since the discussion began.) Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 01:33, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Caribbean Policy Research Institute

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Fails WP:ORG GregJackP (talk) 11:54, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Also strongly promotional in tone and includes weaselly and barely-English text: ...works to promote evidence-based dialogue on development within Caribbean societies. In an effort to create better policies, the institute informs debate through the production of research-driven information of the highest quality to the wider public, including policymakers and influencers. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:27, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - I agree, the article is badly written and needs an overhaul, however that is not a valid argument for deletion. As for the notability of the organization, a search of the Google News archives brings up 134 hits, the majority of them in the Jamaica Gleaner.  The Gleaner is a daily broadsheet newspaper that's been published for 166 years, and should handily meet the criteria for a reliable source. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:33, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per Beyond My Ken; the Gleaner is a reliable source. Guettarda (talk) 17:37, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep It passes WP:ORG; better editing would help the article. Warrah (talk) 17:03, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - check the actual articles in the Jamaica Gleaner - the majority of the hits are due to trivial mention in the byline of a columnist, whose bio identifies him as being affiliated with the CPRI. Trivial mentions of this type are not appropriate sources for notability according to WP:SOURCES. (GregJackP (talk) 01:25, 24 March 2010 (UTC))
 * Really? The ones I checked (in Google News) are not like this at all. Guettarda (talk) 02:11, 25 March 2010 (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.