Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Institute for Nootropic Studies


 * 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. Sam Walton (talk) 00:08, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Institute for Nootropic Studies

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No evidence of notability; no references except the organization's web site and Facebook page. Looie496 (talk) 16:56, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  Everymorning   talk  18:58, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  Everymorning   talk  18:58, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  Everymorning   talk  18:58, 13 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep Does not violate criteria for speedy deletion, does not qualify for Wikipedia's reasons for deletion. I agree that they don't have reliable references but I also disagree that there is no Notability. Company's work seems legitimate. Reason for notability seems to be they committed to the advancement of brain science and nootropic research. The main approach is the cross-referencing of research in existing subclinical neural issues providing grant money to researchers and brain science theorists whose work may be outside the scope of normal grant funding. khocon (talk) 11:33, 15 March 2015 (GMT+6)
 * For clarity, the preceding comment comes from the editor who created the article. Looie496 (talk) 19:46, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * O RLY? Tigraan (talk) 11:30, 20 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. No evidence (such as independently and reliably published stories about this organization) of passing WP:ORG. Plausible WP:CSD speedy deletion as the article makes no credible case for its significance. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:17, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. Notability not established. --IO Device (talk) 23:29, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Clearly isn't notable. Isn't mentioned anywhere online apart from Facebook and their own website. Erik.Bjareholt (talk) 11:57, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - for all that I know from a search engine test, it could be a complete hoax (#1 is the article, #2 is facebook, and the rest is irrelevant). Tigraan (talk) 11:30, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * 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.