Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Institute for Social and Economic Research and Policy


 * 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 keep. Sandstein (talk) 12:13, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Institute for Social and Economic Research and Policy

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

no claim of notability since March 2007-adding here as per protocol Montchav (talk) 01:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete The article rambles and doesn't make a point about importance. --Stormbay (talk) 15:03, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - a VERY prestigious research institute of Columbia University. Frequently studies from this institute are reported by major outlets like The New York Times,  The Washington Post , The Guardian , BBC News   and National Public Radio .  Just by being a research institute at Columbia is an assertion of notability.  I hope this AfD ends soon because this is one that is embarrassing to Wikipedia.  --Oakshade (talk) 07:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong keep. In its current form, the article absolutely asserts notability - the tag really should have been removed months ago. The hits listed by Oakshade above do reflect a notable institution, inasmuch as people who work there are repeatedly referred to as experts in their field. Similarly, if you run the name through Google Scholar there are almost three hundred hits, almost all of which are for scholarly articles written by people who are employed there.  This article originally was created by a SPA, and subsequently lost most of its content as a copyright vio. Still, while the article needs improvement, the notability of this organization is very clear. Xymmax (talk) 17:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep valid article. Catchpole (talk) 22:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Absolute Keep the article isn't currently in the best state but I intend to work on it and have so tagged it. I think Montchav is doing the same as I am in tackling the backlog as we keep bumping into one another. I ask any admin who may come by to close please hold this through the weekend pending my work on it as I believe I can improve it to an article worth keeping. Travellingcari (talk) 01:20, 2 February 2008 (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.