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. v/r - TP 01:59, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

University of Michigan Institute for Social Research (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Deprodded R.Haworth's prod, and sending it here for discussion. I think this might be one of the exceptions to the general rule that institutes such as these are not notable--it does seem to be one of the major institute in its field at the world level. Needs citations on impact of its publications. DGG ( talk ) 23:41, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 18:41, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 18:41, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 18:41, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. "It is the premier center for survey research methodology in the world. There are no close seconds."[1] The article does need a lot of work, but that's no reason to delete it. --Avenue (talk) 02:11, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Seems notable enough, esp. per the reference given by Avenue. Drmies (talk) 17:10, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Avenue's quote strongly indicates notability, but take a look at the whole LA Times article: that one citation alone would provide enough independent material for a verifiable page. The second page may be more useful than the first. DeliciousBits (talk) 08:20, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Nom was correct to deprod. References are needed, but notability does not seem to be an issue here. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 03:42, 17 September 2011 (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.