Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Right Question 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. Randykitty (talk) 22:02, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Right Question Institute

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This organisation doesn't appear to meet the notability requirements of WP:ORG. I have searched for in depth coverage of the organisation in independent sources but have not found anything. SmartSE (talk) 22:45, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  Jinkinson   talk to me  22:55, 24 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - Per nom. --Dэя-Бøяg 23:00, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 25 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete as no evidence of notability. – Davey 2010 •  (talk)  02:11, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep In a few minutes I found these articles:, , , . --Sammy1339 (talk) 22:21, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Relisting comment: Relisting per sources presented in the discussion.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 01:37, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 08:06, 9 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. Of the links provided by Sammy 1339, the first isn't secondary ("process that we and our colleagues at the Right Question Institute have developed"); the second probably qualifies as a reliable secondary source, but one article in a local newspaper is insufficient to satisfy the GNG; the third is just an excerpt from a book by the organization's founders; and the fourth is a passing mention. I agree that without better independent sourcing this fails WP:ORG. Deor (talk) 12:08, 19 October 2014 (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.