Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kayyali Space Foundation

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 delete. MelanieN (talk) 23:35, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kayyali Space Foundation

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Couldn't find any independent coverage. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 21:59, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:10, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:10, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:10, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No independent evidence that organization exists. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:47, 5 June 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Comment: Please note that the page being talk about is now located at Kayyali Space Foundation. Anarchyte (work | talk) 08:18, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only given reference is primary. It was established in 2016 so maybe it's too soon? Anarchyte (work | talk) 08:19, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've moved the AFD over to the correct title. I'll sort links momentarily, but the redirect should catch anything I miss. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 19:45, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And on the merits... I think Anarchyte has this one. There hasn't been enough coverage to indicate notability, and that's likely a function of the organization being new. WP:USUAL may apply, however - if the KSF really takes off, an article might be appropriate. For now, Delete. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 19:49, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please note that the page has some References, how much references wikipedia needs? Ang.din (talk) 14:40, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The trick is that references have to be independent of the subject. Here we seem to have two press releases and a youtube video. Where are the news agencies talking about the foundation? If there are (non-english, perhaps) news articles that talk about the KSF, I've been unable to find them. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 19:29, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Organization founded in 2016 and no third source, still too early to consider encyclopedic.--Triquetra (talk) 17:28, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as clearly too soon, founded this year and simply nothing else convincing. SwisterTwister talk 06:47, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with all the comments above: too soon, lack of independent source and in my opinion, nothing important to stay in an encyclopaedia (maybe after 10-20 years if this foundation will do something special, not now). --Daniele Pugliesi (talk) 05:23, 10 June 2016 (UTC)--Daniele Pugliesi (talk) 05:23, 10 June 2016 (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.