Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Research Methods 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. Secret ^account 16:18, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Research Methods Institute[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

According to the article, this is a non-profit organisation, which does not at all tally with the impression given by their website. Apparently this is now a company called RMA, which focuses on research analytics, training services and other products. There are no third-party sources at all in the article. I've searched around for a while, and while "research methods institute" and "RMA" yield a lot of hits, there's nothing secondary that actually refers to this organisation/company, that I can find. There does not seem to be sufficient notaility for a Wikipedia article. bonadea contributions talk 12:16, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no significant coverage from non-primary reliable sources found to indicate that the subject is notable as defined by WP:GNG. Failing GNG, the subject is automatically non-notable per WP:ORG.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:15, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As nominator says, the article's description of a nonprofit organization does not at all match the company's website, with its boasts about "our customers"; something smells funny here. In any case, the article fails GNG for lack of any third party sourcing at all. I found absolutely nothing at Google News. --MelanieN (talk) 02:58, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Melanie. – SJ + 03:00, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.