Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IIT Research Institute

:{{la|IIT Research Institute}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/IIT_Research_Institute Stats])

:({{Find sources|IIT Research Institute}})

marketing article. google results are largely press-release driven. UseTheCommandLine (talk) 13:10, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. 17:23, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:23, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

• Delete and redirect to Illinois Institute of Technology. This is unreferenced hornblowing by that school's contract research outfit. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:23, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
• Keep I think the google news results support WP:N. Many are more than incidental. Although the current article may need to be rewritten for to be less promotional.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:34, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
• Keep Maintain as separate article as a distinctly separate think tank institute historically operative in many fields. IIT article is already quite lengthy. Have provided some references noting institute name, and other material, following editing to remove article advertising/puffery bias. Article should be keepable at this point though it does need more work. (T.D. - Los Angeles).--Thor Dockweiler (talk) 08:33, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

::Response There is still a whole lot of unverified assertions of fact. I note that the Google News responses mentioned upthread are overwhelmingly from the Chicago Tribune, and also that one of the first hits on Google News is an article entitled "Tribune president elected IIT trustee" which could call into question the independence of the tribune as a source and in turn its use to satisfy WP:RS for WP:N. The only mention of IIT in the new york times is a paywalled article from 1965. There is only a single mention of the IIT (excluding obituaries and the similarly named IITs in Annapolis, McLean, and Vienna) in the Washington Post, from 2000, having to do with the Carnivore surveillance system.

::I searched for "Armour Research Foundation" too, and got few results other than court cases. This suggests to me that the depth of coverage (WP:CORPDEPTH) is not substantial, in turn suggesting that the coverage it deserves on WP should be at best a stub article. The article, however, is quite large, with (as noted) many assertions of fact that are unreferenced. For my part, I am still unconvinced that this satisfies WP:N requirements. -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 10:40, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

:::Reply I seem to be finding all sorts of material in numerous fields, including journals and newspapers. The contributions of IITRI and Armour are more substantial than even I thought. Quite profound actually. There are thousands and thousands of papers. Makes you wonder what load of material was done that was classified. Ultimately, Armour could have its own separate article in addition to a very long article on IITRI [this is separate and apart from other activities of the IIT college alone]. So far everything is checking out. The current president item for Tribune was just noted in 11/2012 - - seriously not relevant for all the items historically over many decades. Not everything is yet on the Web.--Thor Dockweiler (talk) 01:21, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

:Have added more reference material to support article. This really seems to be just a referencing matter. Signigicant profound depth in the literature is readily apparent to this editor. Have spent 20 hours over 2 days now in additional input.--Thor Dockweiler (talk) 01:21, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

::Wow, that's really fantastic. Is there a way to rescind the nomination? What tags would be most appropriate to place on the article until you get to working this stuff in? -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 01:26, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

::Nevermind about the tags, I see that you've substantially edited the article.

::I would now say Keep unreservedly. -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 01:30, 9 February 2013 (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.