Talk:Policy Connect

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Organizations

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

This page should not be speedy deleted because...

This page should not be speedily deleted because... (your reason here) --PeterBarrett1982 (talk) 10:22, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to politely but strongly contest the deletion of the page 'Policy Connect' on a number of grounds. It has been my intention to carry on adapting the page this coming week, adding in further citations etc. If other wikipedia users have advice on how it ought to be adapted, then I am of course more than happy to take that advice.

I would add however...

Comparisons to other long-standing wikipedia pages Wikipedia has pages for dozens and dozens of UK think tanks, plus a further page listing all UK think tank (See 'List of think tanks in the United Kingdom'). Policy Connect is no different to any one of the 100 other think tanks that have wikipedia pages - except Policy Connect is a not-for-profit, unlike most other think tanks. I have read most of these other think tanks' wikipedia pages and many of them are extremely self-promoting and not at all neutral. I believe that the Policy Connect wikipedia page has been written in a fair and neutral manner. Nevertheless, I am happy to adapt it....

Official parliamentary groups As the page says, Policy Connect provides secretariat services to several all-party parliamentary groups (APPG). These are official groups/committees of UK MPs and Peers working on key policy topics, producing reports for on policy making in government. I would have thought that this would very much warrant a wikipedia page? Again, there are already many pages on wikipedia for other APPGs (For example, the APPG on Agriculture and Food for Development).

It is vital that there is transparency in politics - therefore, people need to know which people and organisations are involved in these parliamentary groups. As such, I do believe Policy Connect should have a wikipedia page, clearly detailing its involvement in and around the UK parliament.

Further work on the page I would politely request two things. Firstly, more time to finish the page. Secondly, I would politely request greater explanation as to why Policy Connect is recommended for deletion when other organisations (which I will name - if required), get away with having pages that contain PRECISELY the same self-promotional marketing text taken from their own website!

But overall, I'm not trying to fall out with anyone. I just need a bit more time to finish the page..

Yours politely...

PeterBarrett1982

Actually, there was no attempt to speedy delete the article now, that was back in october. And concerning your objection above, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Lectonar (talk) 10:41, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]