Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Luminosity Lab
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
— User:Chalst, 10:39, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
Stance: comment
Cited policy: WP:ORGDEPTH||WP:INHERITORG||WP:THREE (Wikipedia:Notability)