Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Parliament Street (think tank)


 * 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. Nakon 01:06, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Parliament Street (think tank)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Several references but which of them are actually in-depth discussions of the think tank itself? &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 15:46, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * KeepThere are 9 references in total each of them acts as a source to claims in the article. There is also a link to the think tank's website and its entry on the EU transparency register. Your help on tightening up the title of the article has been noted and welcomed. If you really feel that the article needs improvement, please help me to do so rather than deleting all my work so farEuropa2017 (talk) 16:13, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete – According to WP:ORGDEPTH, quotations from the think tank's personnel as story sources are regarded as trivial coverage, and that accounts for most of the sources in the article and what I found on Google and Google News. It does seem to be good at making FOI requests and getting coverage that way. But aside from the clergy assaults these were fairly trivial topics, like the police losing smartphones or Tweets by public servants. The EU Transparency Report link was good. It needs more sources like that. – Margin1522 (talk) 20:20, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - I think the article meets the criteria in WP:ORG - particularly, its got good examples of coverage of its substantive research reports by multiple independent, third party sources. (Although I think inclusion in the EU transparency register is so important - it's a register of organisations, so doesn't really help either way determine whether it's notable either way.) ZAccelerator (talk) 09:39, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * This is an old account, but has made no recent edits save a few to this article/this AfD. Smells fishy to me.TheLongTone (talk) 15:15, 16 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 15 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete I'm not seeing any significant coverage of the organisation. All the coverage seems to be of reports produced and freedom of information requests by the think tank, not any actual coverage of the think tank itself that an article about the organisation itself can be written from. Davewild (talk) 09:53, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete No evidence of notablity.
 * Delete or WP:USERFY. Subject has been mentioned in multiple reliable sources, however none appear to have the subject as the primary subject of what is being written, and none appear to give the subject significant coverage sufficient to show that the subject of this article presently meets WP:ORG. Therefore, perhaps it is WP:TOOSOON. If the primary editor would like to userfy this article, and research to find more sources, I would not be opposed to that.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:16, 16 March 2015 (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.