Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eyring Research 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:02, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Eyring Research Institute

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

I can only locate minimal sources on this company; and none that satisfies WP:SIRS. Fails WP:NCORP. Graywalls (talk) 20:58, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies,  and Utah. Graywalls (talk) 20:58, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. The current article isn't very good, but Eyring Research Institute played a role in the early history of technology in Utah Valley. You can see this by the articles that link to it. This role is why per this release  they were inducted into the Utah Valley Entrepreneurial Forum's Hall of Fame in 2011, following companies like WordPerfect and Novell.  You can also see some of their history, contracts, and big-name customers in Utah newspaper stories from the time like this one from 1973 and this one from 1979 and this one from 1980 and this one from 1981 and this one from 1983 and this one from 1985 and so on.  Some of the pieces are on the boosterish side but they establish that it was an enterprise of some significance in the area.   Wasted Time R (talk) 23:15, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment in evaluating notability, press releases have no bearing in establishing notability. In order for a company/organization to be deemed notable, there needs significant, independent and reliable coverage in multiple sources. Coverage by the same journalist or the same publication counts as one. The Hall of Fame host is not independent and being in the host's press release is nothing like being mentioned for being in Utah Valley Entrepreeurial Forum in a multi-page article dedicated to Eyring Research Institute in PC Magazine. The link to it from Novell was added by what appears to be a connected contributor/SPA in Special:Diff/127481326 Graywalls (talk) 02:44, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment The diff mentioned about was where Eyring Research Institute was added into Novell. It was in Special:Diff/136422976; again by the same COI/SPA editor where wiki link to ERI was added. Graywalls (talk) 23:41, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I've gotta say, characterizing these contributions as coming from a SPA, or indicated a COI, seems completely unwarranted to me here. A gentle reminder to WP:AGF. Suriname0 (talk) 19:21, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Actually that editor was indeed an SPA of sorts, whose contributions revolved around some claims and disputes associated with the Eyring Research Institute, WordPerfect, and Novell, as described in this Deseret News story from 2003. I'm not saying those contributions are sound or that those claims are true.  I'm saying that the Eyring Research Institute was a real entity that played a role of some significance in the rise of tech industry in Utah Valley.  Wasted Time R (talk) 13:56, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:06, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Computing. Graywalls (talk) 06:38, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 23:38, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete This is a company therefore WP:NCORP guidelines apply. We need at least two deep or significant sources containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. References cannot rely only on information provided by the company - therefore regurgitated quotations, press releases, announcements, interviews etc all fail ORGIND. None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability of the company, topic company therefore fails WP:NCORP.  HighKing++ 22:05, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment. If this is a non-profit, then the WP:NONPROFIT standards (meets GNG and has a national/international scope of activities) would apply rather than the stricter WP:NCORP guidelines for companies. —  Red-tailed hawk (nest) 21:04, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
 * In which case, this doesn't. This is essentially constrained to Utah. Also, the intent of the guideline you cite isn't black or white simply based on the classification status of the organization in question by the IRS tax code. Graywalls (talk) 03:44, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
 * There is no real definition of what constitutes a non-profit, but it was initially founded as a charity but later (which is in the article) The Utah Supreme Court terminated ERI's tax exempt status in 1979 because the Court found that ERI was not devoted to a charitable purpose. So in my opinion, at least from a tax code pov, I don't believe it is a non-profit.  HighKing++ 13:57, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete Fails NCORP. Coverage is simply press releases. BruceThomson (talk) 05:45, 14 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete  per WP:INHERITORG and lack of reliable sources. Wozal (talk) 16:22, 15 January 2023 (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.