Deletion of Altarum Institute

Comment: Depending on your interpretation of the GNG, the article may or may not be notable. At first glance it meets the GNG threshhold of multiple i.e. 2 reliable  independent sources: https://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-263533.html Washington Post and http://www.crainsdetroit.com/article/20130616/NEWS/306169992/altarum-lays-off-15-expects-5-5m-chop-from-sequestration Crain's Detroit.  The institute also has significant impact in its field with almost 900 https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Altarum+Institute%22&biw=1366&bih=662&noj=1&tbm=nws&ei=Y8KTWPfCK6S4jwT2t4l4&start=0&sa=N&dpr=1 Gnews hits, most of which are references to its reports.  However, there's a catch - the Washington Post article is an interview, and the GNG implies that interviews do not count towards notability.  It says that sources should be secondary, and  says that interviews are primary sources.  See the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Notability/Archive_49#Interviews_count_as_primary.2C_but_it_says_for_GNG_you_need_secondary_sources.  I think an interview is evidence of media attention though, so I am leaning towards keep.  Note that I don't have a Highbeam subscription so I can see how much coverage there is in the Washington Post interview
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)