Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eidos Institute

:The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:33, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

=[[Eidos Institute]]=

:{{la|Eidos Institute}} ([{{fullurl:Eidos Institute|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eidos Institute}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

Non-notable think tank. Although the universities may be notable, a collaboration is not inherently so. While they certainly make an effort to put their names out there (including this page and a Facebook profile), there are few if any reliable secondary sources offering any significant coverage. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 02:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 04:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 04:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Weak Delete. Unreferenced. Google News, Google Scholar and Google Books show no relevant results.^{[http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22Eidos%20Institute][http://books.google.com/books?q=%22Eidos%20Institute][http://news.google.com/news?q=%22Eidos%20Institute]} — Rankiri (talk) 17:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 8 July 2009 (UTC){{#ifeq:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eidos Institute||}}

Weak delete - I'm with Rankiri 100% on this. I see a few google news hits but I don't think they're enough. If I saw something else though notable I could be persuaded though. Shadowjams (talk) 08:34, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Delete It isn't an official collaboration of those universities, it doesn't have for instance an office or a street address. Hence it should be judged only as an organisation in its own right, and in that sense it fails notability on all the grounds indicated (mainly a lack of sources). Orderinchaos 11:56, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Weak Delete It looks more like a glorified consultancy business to universities and government than a think tank (although maybe that is what a think tank is!). It does have a street address in inner city Brisbane and one at Griffith University as mentioned on its website: [http://www.eidos.org.au]. It has put out some large policy commentary documents[www.eidos.org.au/news/items/2006/12/119393-upload-00001.pdf], but I don't think this makes it notable in itself. Jenafalt (talk) 14:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.