The result was delete. Randykitty ( talk) 17:37, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Article about a research organization, making no substantive claim of notability beyond the semi-promotional and unverifiable "one of the leading think tanks" (which sez who?), and relying primarily on primary sources — the only reference here that passes muster as a substantive reliable source is an obituary of one associated academic, which notes the existence of this organization but fails to be about this organization. And the other non-primary source is just a photograph of the building that the organization is based in, thus also failing to be substantive coverage of the organization. I'm willing to withdraw this if the sourcing can be substantively improved, but in its existing form the sourcing does not adequately demonstrate that the organization passes WP:GNG. Delete. Bearcat ( talk) 15:06, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Randykitty ( talk) 17:37, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Article about a research organization, making no substantive claim of notability beyond the semi-promotional and unverifiable "one of the leading think tanks" (which sez who?), and relying primarily on primary sources — the only reference here that passes muster as a substantive reliable source is an obituary of one associated academic, which notes the existence of this organization but fails to be about this organization. And the other non-primary source is just a photograph of the building that the organization is based in, thus also failing to be substantive coverage of the organization. I'm willing to withdraw this if the sourcing can be substantively improved, but in its existing form the sourcing does not adequately demonstrate that the organization passes WP:GNG. Delete. Bearcat ( talk) 15:06, 11 April 2015 (UTC)