Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Center for Applied Rationality
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
— [[User: Kbog|'''K''']].[[User talk:Kbog|'''Bog''']], 06:02, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:GNG (Wikipedia:Notability)