Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/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 Keep ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Research institute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Because of the incredibly diverse nature of research institutes (ranging from science to international relations to the arts), an article called "Research institute" can't do much beyond simply defining what a research institute is. However, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This article has been around for almost 2 years and has never grown beyond stub status and I say that that's because there's not much more one can say about "research institutes" in general. Hnsampat 14:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep The article has about 70 incoming links, so deleting it will affect readability elsewhere in my opinion, unless you assume that "everyone knows" what a research institute is. I agree that it's not much more than a dictionary entry. YechielMan 14:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response - I don't think a fear of red links is a good reason for keeping an article that should not be here. --Hnsampat 00:29, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep It's not a good article as it is, but I think there is potential for a decent one. I'm swayed by the number of incoming links, because it makes sense to me to wikilink the phrase "research institute" in an article, so it follows that I think there should be an article about research institutes at the end of the link. Propaniac 16:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless, by the end of the AFD, there are significant sourced additions to the article discussing such things as the history of research institutes, the roles they play within their research disciplines, etc. This is a dictionary definition as it stands. I am unpersuaded by the incoming links. Otto4711 17:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There are many generic articles not yet started or developed on wikipedia. Dont quash this just because its only a dictionary definition at this point. That s how many articles start. Decoratrix 18:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response - I agree that articles should not be "quashed" simply for being stubs. However, I don't think this article has much hope of ever becoming more than just a stub. Once you've defined what a research institute is, what do you do next? This article, as it stands, tries to expand on the concept of "research institutes" by citing a few examples of "famous" institutes. However, there are many many MANY famous institutes and there's no way we can list some here without injecting some kind of bias (i.e. primarily listing American or European institues or primarily listing science or medical institutes, etc.). In short, I've nominated this article for deletion because I don't think it has any hope of ever becoming more than just a definition. --Hnsampat 18:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep useful, but needs expansion. JJL 23:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:USEFUL is not a compelling argument. Otto4711 00:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep it. Looks like a job for WP:HISTINFO, and perhaps other WikiProjects. -- Rob C (Alarob) 01:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Needs immense expansion, and we will probably need articles on a good many individual ones as we go. DGG 04:17, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Your comment does not address the policy objection raised by the nomination. Otto4711 00:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The nom. said, First, that there is too much diversity for an article--I don't see that, we have articles of broad topics like school and college, we can manage this. Second, not a dictionary, the article begins to discuss the subject, and gives examples--almost all topical articles start off with a definition. Third, that it had been a stub for 2 years: that's reason to expand it, not delete it. Being a stub doesn't mean it isn't encyclopedia worthy--there are thousands that we just haven't gotten to yet. I dont like to comment adversely on peoples nominations, just on the article. DGG 01:16, 3 June 2007 (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.