Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Family and Parenting 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. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:57, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Family and Parenting Institute

 * – ( View AfD View log )

The article describes an organization who seem to be dedicating to setting troubled families on the right track, which is admirable, but not necessarily notable. Of the references provided, only one would be qualified as a reliable source - the remainder are either the organization's web page, or a document about lobbyists. However, the article in question is not an article about FPI, it's an article in which FPI are quoted. See also WP:NOBLECAUSE. --  Dennis The Tiger  (Rawr and stuff) 17:52, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 21 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 02:48, 29 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep This organisation does have significant press coverage, partly illustrated by the references in the article and also by the likes of this 2009 Guardian column discussing them, this Simon Hoggart sketch of a positioning speech by David Cameron. Their proximity to the UK govt (see this for example) in mediating of project financing makes them worthy of coverage. AllyD (talk) 13:29, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. I see opportunities to source the article in reliable sources. — Ed! (talk) 17:42, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment A report commissioned by this organisation just got approx 5 mins coverage on the main BBC News tonight, including an interview with its head: see BBC article; also Guardian. AllyD (talk) 18:30, 4 January 2012 (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.