Deletion of Public Information Research (2nd nomination)

Comment: whilst I don't think it's the most important article we have, it's certainly notable per the |organisation notability guidelines.. Per the guideline - "A company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject.  " - PIR has been discussed in many secondary sources, including the New York Times making it clearly notable
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CORP)

Comment: The article fails our guidelines for inclusion (/).  NameBase is at first glance more notable a topic (particularly based on Risker's arguments above), and any worthwhile information pertaining directly to NameBase could be moved there
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CORP||WP:WEB)

Comment: per Risker and Giano. While related entities might be somewhat notable, PIR fails  as far as I can see. I have a suspicion that NGPOV (navel-gazing point of view) is the major reason we keep this around. We don't like WR, so we keep the article so we can have someplace to talk about Brandt & Co. In the greater world, it's just not that important
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CORP)