Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ethics and Public Policy Center


 * 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. PeterSymonds (talk)  20:14, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Ethics and Public Policy Center

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Not notable. No secondary sources cited. A Yahoo search only turns up a few mentions in directories and so forth. Borock (talk) 13:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete: only citation is to topic's website's 'About' page. Thus no evidence that it meets WP:ORG. HrafnTalkStalk 16:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Addendum: the deleted material was unsourced and was not extensive. The Google News/Books coverage appears to make only trivial mentions of EPPC. Nothing that "address[es] the subject directly in detail" (per WP:NOTE), and so no solid basis for a good article. Confirm delete. HrafnTalkStalk 04:29, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete: Looks like a data sheet.--Puttyschool (talk) 17:53, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Doesn't seem to meet notability, in my opinion.  Lady   Galaxy  21:47, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:41, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Abundant coverage found in Google News and Google Books. Edit history also indicates removal of content. Controversial and poorly written, but WP:RS is available for a balanced article. • Gene93k (talk) 22:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per Gene93k. Lots of stuff on their fringe views of science and politically driven activity into Clinton-Whitewater. We66er (talk) 03:16, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I added another reference to the article. The coverage is still kind of slim, but maybe okay for an article if we are not being all that strict about WP's official standards. Borock (talk) 16:29, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I certainly think it is notable to know about crazy religous people and their fellowships. --Law Lord (talk) 19:53, 13 August 2008 (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.