Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MIT Center for Collective Intelligence

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. L'Aquatique[talk] 19:15, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MIT Center for Collective Intelligence

Non-notable research group. I do not dispute that there are notable people who are affiliated with it, but this does not mean that notability is inherited. The organization has not been the subject of coverage by reliable, independent, secondary sources, it is but one of hundreds of research groups at a major research university. It likewise reads like an advertisement or resume rather than encyclopedia article. Madcoverboy (talk) 08:36, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. -- Madcoverboy (talk) 08:37, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- Madcoverboy (talk) 08:37, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Madcoverboy (talk) 08:37, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect - with/to MIT – ukexpat (talk) 17:00, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Suggest MIT Sloan School of Management instead. Madcoverboy (talk) 19:49, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment whether merged and redirected or kept, this information should be included in the encyclopedia. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:20, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Thomas W. Malone. C'mon, it's the professor's research group. Research groups and centers are hardly ever notable, no matter the people in them and their work. RayAYang (talk) 01:53, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep The question of when a research center gets an article is undecided. Clearly, when its a free-standing multi-departmental center with a building of its own and major publications and multiple faculty groups and some sort of permanent university presence it probably does (e.g. MIT AI Lab). Equally, when it's a department's or a professor's organizational gimmick for grants and publicity, then it isnt. There are more difficult cases in the middle, like this. (I don't think hardly ever is the right summary word.) At least initially, yes, it's an extension of Thomas Malone's research group. But other faculty and departments are involved also, there's very impressive co-sponsorship DGG (talk) 03:52, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply "Hardly ever" was, in this case, meant to describe groups formed around a single professor, of which there are usually dozens in every American research university. Quite a few of them have called themselves the center for something or the other at some time or another, and since the groups is usually formed around a prominent professor, can claim collaboration with many other departments, universities, etc. This is just part of academic life. Barring a sign that this center is bigger than a research group or a department (and many departments of great academic reputation nonetheless do not merit Wikipedia articles of their own), I don't think we should include it. RayAYang (talk) 20:58, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep. Googling fo the title got me hits that show that MIT CCI is not a just one prof's platform but has attracted support from several depts within MIT and other top-class academic institutions, e.g. Wharton Business School. OTOH this article does seem a bit premature, as there has not been time for it to publish significant results and for WP:RS to comment on them. Is there any way we can set up a timed AfD review to take place e.g. 6-12 months from now? --Philcha (talk) 12:49, 23 November 2008 (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.