Deletion of Center for European Policy Analysis

Comment: This is a significant institution in terms of personnel, scope, and funding, yet it does not meet the notability criteria for inclusion. Online searching scares up mostly Wikipedia:Mirrors_and_forks#Things_you_need_to_know|Wikipedia mirrors, references to publications by the institution (e.g. https://books.google.gr/books?id=bvEz0bT2WWcC&pg=PA169&dq=%22Center+for+European+Policy+Analysis%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwis5a2-uJneAhWJDsAKHav5DOMQ6AEIUjAI#v=onepage&q=%22Center%20for%20European%20Policy%20Analysis%22&f=false here or https://books.google.gr/books?id=DbDvAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA217&dq=%22Center+for+European+Policy+Analysis%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwis5a2-uJneAhWJDsAKHav5DOMQ6AEITDAH#v=onepage&q=%22Center%20for%20European%20Policy%20Analysis%22&f=false here), and |self-references, but no significant |coverage in |independent sources. We could mercifully diagnose 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:PRIMARY||WP:V||WP:RS||WP:TOOSOON)

Comment: Perhaps  criterion 1 should be considered as extending/applying to thinktanks ("...research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources"), but it's not at all clear that that would be met by CEPAhttps://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=%22Center+for+European+Policy+Analysis%22&oq=ce. Another possibility would be if there were evidence of significant coverage of some of their activities including the CEPA Forum. A third possibility would be if there were sufficient offline coverage. On the one hand, it doesn't appear to meet ORGDEPTH / GNG. On the other hand, I know that HARMLESS and a (weak) USEFUL are , but... HARMLESS and USEFUL as this article links several bluelinked people; doesn't redirect anywhere cleanly; and can centralise material that would otherwise be reasonable to have at those members' articles, and that wouldn't nicely crosslink between those members
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NACADEMIC||WP:ATA)

Comment: Passes  and organization is notable, has several notable staff and alumni
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NONPROFIT)

Comment: Passes .  Think tanks and the like rarely get any coverage for the organisation as such, only for the stuff they produce
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NONPROFIT)

Comment: There are claims above that this meets , but that requires ''significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the organization'', which I'm not seeing.  Most of the sources in the article are to CEPA's own website.  Of the four that aren't, two 404.  The rt.com piece is an op-ed.  The Diplomatic Pouch piece is about a forum run by CEPA, not the organization itself.  It's also unclear if The Diplomatic Pouch is a ; they describe themselves as, ''an email newsletter distributed to opt-in subscribers and produced by The Washington Diplomat, an independent monthly newspaper. The Pouch covers the diplomatic community, international affairs, politics, arts and culture, and social life in Washington, D.C. Although a complement to The Washington Diplomat newspaper, all content is original and exclusively written for the Pouch.''  I have no idea what editorial oversight they have, and our The Washington Diplomat article doesn't say much either
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NONPROFIT||WP:RS)