Deletion of Mackenzie Institute

Comment: Organizations don't get to dictate that an article cannot exist at all if it's not their own massaged PR version — inclusion is governed by ''our'' notability standards, article content is governed by ''our'' content standards, and the organization themselves get ''no'' special right to override our rules in either area. If the organization has |bias concerns about the content, they can raise their issues on the ''talk'' page for ''discussion'' — but they do ''not'' get ''veto'' rights over whether the article is allowed to exist at all, or what it is or isn't allowed to say. No prejudice against renomination in the future if a ''valid'' reason to delete can be found — but "the organization wants it deleted because their own PR whitewash of it has been reverted" is not a valid reason
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV)

Comment: clearly notable per , with multiple secondary . I can see much more online in Google News about the organisation that could be added, from more secondary RS. Its recent edit history shows that someone evidently connected with the group doesn't like what the article says about them, and tried repeatedly to overwrite it with glossy marketing closely paraphrased from (and only referenced by) their website, including via a sockpuppet account (now blocked
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ORG||WP:RS)