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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:13, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oregon Center for Public Policy

[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

small not notable organization. The article is POV advocacy, All the ref but the NYT are purely local,and the NYT just mentions it. DGG ( talk ) 12:13, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 01:03, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 01:18, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 01:18, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 14:42, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The NYT mention is not worthy enough to keep this and the article does read like advocacy per NOMs statement. WP:TNT. -- Dane ^talk 01:32, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD2014 📞 contribs 01:30, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Many good WP:RS that are significant. Fully half of the NYT story references or quotes this center and just because the papers are from the same state does not make the stories of purely local interest. This is exactly the sort of profile a public-interest research center prominent in state affairs should have. Claims of "local sources" are too often used to carve good sources out of WP:GNG in AfD. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:33, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:15, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete besides the NY times article, the sources provided are almost exclusively from Oregon. under WP:NGO , signiifcant coverage other than local is required. LibStar (talk) 01:56, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes GNG. L3X1 (distant write) 22:03, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:VAGUEWAVE. LibStar (talk) 02:38, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets GNG. Also it is very good function for Wikipedia to serve as a reference about news/opinion sources. --do ncr am 23:29, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also it is very good function for Wikipedia to serve as a reference about news/opinion sources is not a criterion for notability. LibStar (talk) 15:01, 23 April 2017 (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.