Deletion of The Luminosity Lab

Comment: The number and quality of RSes seems OK to me. The delete arguments are substantial, but I think poorly explained, given that {{u|LabRat55}} is not familiar with our notability guidelines.  The content in sections 2 and 3 is sourced but these are poor quality sources and the coverage here is insubstantial. While the sourcing for section 4, on the competitions the org has taken part in, is substantial, the worry that leads to citing  is that this coverage is about things the org has done (cf. ) but doesn't provide the kind of substantial information about the organisation that we would need to write a balanced encyclopedia article. LabRat55: can I suggest you identify an RS that does have substantial coverage of the organisation itself?  is often cited in deletion discussions, but I think a single ref that puts to rest this specific concern would really strengthen the ''keep'' rationale. &mdash
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ORGDEPTH||WP:INHERITORG||WP:THREE)

Comment: there are several in-depth article about this group due their winning the award, which btw is hardly a notable award, but I can't find enough to pass . If some sourcing from non-local sources turns up please ping and I'll definitely re-assess
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ORGDEPTH)

Comment: or '''redirect''' with Arizona State University per nom. A student-run lab at a university, which has only been around for 5 years: the notability is limited to winning a one-time $500,000 prize in a mask design competition, being 1 of 22 finalists in a NASA competition, and 1 of X finalists in another NASA competition, which appears it could even be the same as the first one, meaning that there's only 2 events within about a year, so compelling evidence yet that coverage will be 
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SUSTAINED)