Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Institute for Political Economy

=[[Institute for Political Economy]]=

:{{la|Institute for Political Economy}} ([{{fullurl:Institute for Political Economy|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Institute for Political Economy}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

No notability established, no sources or even website given, just a ridiculous image and caption and a bogus 'See also' Wasted Time R (talk) 15:51, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

:Delete. The institute does seem to exist in some sense, but as far as I can tell Roberts is the only person who's ever been associated with it, so anything about it should just be covered in his article. The title itself seems quite common, so I'd suggest making it a disambig. page after deletion. --Delirium (talk) 20:30, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:08, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 01:48, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete: Fails WP:ORG. Schuym1 (talk) 02:19, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete: Seems to exist and have around $6m in assets according to an IRS source Google turned up, but nothing to prove notability, so fails WP:ORG.Jo7hs2 (talk) 02:21, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

::I would also support Merge as a possible option. Jo7hs2 (talk) 21:03, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Merge and Redirect to Paul Craig Roberts. Since it's his vehicle, it's probably worth a mention in his article, and the redirect would be useful to people looking for information about this institute. Rklear (talk) 02:53, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Merge and Redirect to Paul Craig Roberts. Independent notability nor compliance with WP:ORG has not been established. However, there are enough sources - [http://news.google.co.uk/archivesearch?q=%22Institute+for+Political+Economy%22&hl=en&um=1&sa=N&start=0] - to make the linkage and the merge looks a very good idea. Smile a While (talk) 19:46, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete looks like it isn't notable and only exists on paper. Pstanton 22:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pstanton (talkcontribs)

: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.