Deletion of Parliament Street (think tank)

Comment: or . 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 . Therefore, perhaps it is . If the primary editor would like to userfy this article, and |research to find more sources, I would not be opposed to that
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Userfication (WP:USERFY||WP:SIGCOV||WP:ORG||WP:TOOSOON||WP:BUSY)

Comment: According to , 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 Freedom of information in the United Kingdom|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. –&nbsp
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ORGDEPTH)