Deletion of Center for Applied Rationality

Comment: Clearly meets  with in-depth interviews ranging from the Wall Street Journal to the Huffington Post without even mentioning the New York Times or Forbes, along with several other reliable news sources over several years (not just recent history). Regarding the fact that the article has been the subject of promotional editing is not a reason for deletion.  At best, it would be a reason to “Protect” the page.  Concerning “Edit Was”, again not a reason for deletion.  Edit wars happen all the time and are eventually resolved
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: The criteria for deleting this kind of article is , not whoever has been editing it or whether you think it is promotional (which it isn't) or negative (which it has been in the past). On Fqn9010e0754032's smear attempt - I'd encourage you to look into the actual history of edit disputes to see what was going on rather than uncritically using them as argument fodder -- Jytdog and I were both trying to reduce and rewrite the same article at approximately the same time, not arguing about what kind of content should be included in the final version or not. The insinuation that I have something to do with Vipul is wrong, I never had anything to do with him. Finally, Fqn9010e0754032 is a single purpose account which was created yesterday, and I've noticed that throwaway accounts attacking LessWrong/CFAR/etc have been on the rise over the last month or two on several websites, so we could both play this game if we wanted to
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: After taking a moment to review the article and rationale, this looks like a pretty clear case. WSJ, Vice, and NYT have covered it in depth, in addition to other sources, so it comfortably passes . The only other reason you gave for deleting the article was that you're afraid that I'll engage in "vicious edit wars" on the content of the article. But I didn't dispute any of the edits you made, and actually I think they were pretty reasonable. They displayed good familiarity with the principles of Wikipedia content and formatting. The article has a little room for improvement -- e.g. the NYT excerpt is not perfectly representative of the source, and we can restore one of the citations -- but overall I'm not complaining. So I don't see what the problem is
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: WP:ADVOCACY for the org's $3,900 4-day seminars. Yes, there's some coverage but mostly as a fad. This is a mere curiosity at this point, and I don't see  being met. In the current form, the article is promotional and not a value to the project. The notability is marginal so it's best deleted
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CORPDEPTH)