Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pacific Institute of Public Policy

:{{la|Pacific Institute of Public Policy}} – (View AfDView log{{•}} [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pacific_Institute_of_Public_Policy Stats])

:({{Find sources|Pacific Institute of Public Policy}})

Doesn't appear to meet the notability guideline for organisations and companies or be the subject of any significant independent coverage; reliable sources only contain passing mentions and press releases (contested prod) – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:44, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

• Keep, While it has been suggested that the wiki only includes reference articles which mention PiPP in passing, many of the articles actually only exist in the first place due to topics arising as a direct result from surveys and research findings that came from PiPP. Therefor, it seems a little unusual to suggest that PiPP was only 'mentioned in passing'. On the wiki, PiPP is referenced in papers by the Australian Government's Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade along with the Australian Government's aid agency, AusAID. Both are extremely significant in terms of their impact in the Pacific Islands region. PiPP is well-known in the region, particularly in Australia and among the Pacific Islands and is 'notable'. This notability is demonstrated in part by the variety of sources on the wiki, which include government agencies, the United Nations, news media coverage from media outlets in Fiji, Vanuatu, Australia, New Zealand etc. Tobes82 (talk) 00:51, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

• Keep, since the Institute covers policy for several countries in the Pacific, it would seem to be a notable topic in public policy and Oceanian countries. The article does need to be cleaned up (bare URLs, etc.), but that shouldn't be a basis for deletion. --Funandtrvl (talk) 17:56, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
• Keep per Tobes82's sound analysis--Cavarrone (talk) 02:24, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
• Keep I find the news coverage to be sufficient (significant and independent and from multiple reliable sources). Considering that this agency's focus area is not a huge media market, the degree of coverage reflected in the article is actually quite impressive. --MelanieN (talk) 02:58, 24 June 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.