Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pulsing light 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 Speedy delete. In the course of discussion on user talk pages, the author of this article asked for the article to be deleted, so I have deleted it under CSD G7. I hesitated to close this AfD, as I have participated in the discussion. However, it seems that closing it is just a formality, and will save trouble for others, so I am doing so. Feel free to reopen it if you think I was wrong to close it. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:36, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Pulsing light foundation

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non-notable as effectively unsourced. Sources are not linked, and I have run searches through both Google and the archives I have access to, none of which have turned up any results for "Pulsing Light Foundation" within these publications. Maybe I just suck at searching, but if anyone can verify these sources (thus ending this AfD), I'll give them a cookie. Yunshui (talk) 12:15, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 17:23, 26 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete for now The organization was just started in May; I find no search traction either. Maybe when the papers or someone is moved to write about it... Mangoe (talk) 00:04, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * strong delete this is a clear hoax, none of the refs are weblinked despite all being from 2011. It incorrectly spells Le Monde newspaper as "la Monde". LibStar (talk) 10:29, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * No it doesn't. It spells it as "La Monde", with a capital "L", so you are just as "guilty" of a typo as the article creator. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:44, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Keep I don't know why I bothered setting up this page and try to help to add to wikipedia, to acuse it as a hoax due to a small type error is pathetic, if I knew that your sources had to be viewed on line then I would of waited until it gained more publicity through its good work, the wikipedia guidelines / rules says that a source / refernce doesn't have to be online, but these editors / administrators are saying the opposite, I have a job as a researcher and we do rely on the internet but only a little bit, we have to research the good old fashioned way, we never solely rely on the internet. One thing this experience has taught me is that I will never contribute or help (by adding info) to wikipedia again, it does say in the wikipedia guidelines not to be offended as nothing personal is meant, but the comments left by some are slightly personal, as someone who knows nothing on a certain subject is making comments and deleting your work, when you have worked hard to look into that subject, I never thought that because something is new then it cannot be added to wikipedia; the other problem when other administrators are looking for online sources and coming up with nothing it is because they are looking in the wrong place, what I mean by that is that the features in the media have not been directly about the pulsing light foundation, they have been real life stories about the people that the pulsing light foundation has helped, and in these features the foundation and its work have been mentioned, as a researcher I know that sometimes you need to look at things in a different light / area, you need to ask the right questions, anyway I believe that it would be wrong to delete this page for the above reasons that I have stated, you will find that more info will be added by other people / editors as the foundation becomes more widely known. Trdk4 (talk) 23:39, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete In fact I wouldn't object if someone speedily deleted it as giving no indication of significance (CSD A7). A previous incarnation of this article, under the slightly different title The Pulsing light foundation, was indeed deleted under that criterion. Scarcely any coverage anywhere, and what does exist is only blogspot, blogger, Wikipedia, and Twitter. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:21, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I do sympathise with you. I can well imagine how frustrating it must feel to put some time and effort into writing an article, and find that it is under consideration for deletion. However, unfortunately the reasons you give for keeping the article are not in line with Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. If there are articles which are not directly about the "Pulsing light foundation" but mention it, then it is quite likely that they only give brief mention, rather than giving the substantial coverage which is needed in order to show that a subject is notable. Likewise, you say "more info will be added by other people / editors as the foundation becomes more widely known", but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and for a subject to warrant an article it I necessary that the subject is notable now, not that someone speculates that it will become notable at some time in the future. I would also like to reiterate that you should not take the comments personally. You are quite right in saying that sources do not have to be online. I think that "none of the refs are weblinked despite all being from 2011" probably did not mean "references are not valid unless they are on the internet", but more likely "major publications such as Le Monde and The Sun nowadays always put their content online, but there is no record online of any articles in those publications about the 'Pulsing Light Foundation', so that it seems improbable that such articles exist". I have searched extensively for any mention of this organisation, both in the sources cited in the article and elsewhere. For example, the article gives a citation to The Catholic Herald, but the Catholic Herald's archive contains no article at all containing the words "pulsing" and "light". In fact, there is only one article in the entire archive containing the word "pulsing", namely this one, which has nothing at all to do with the "Pulsing Light Foundation". Similar remarks apply to the other references in the article. Perhaps you can see why this sort of lack of verifiability (of not just one reference but eight of them) might lead someone to the conclusion that the references cited are not genuine, and perhaps also you can understand why that might lead someone to think the whole article is a hoax. I am willing to assume good faith, and believe that the article is not a hoax, but it looks very much indeed like an attempt to publicise or promote a rather obscure organisation without notability, and I can quite see why someone might think that the "references" are fictitious attempts to produce the appearance that sources exist when they don't. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:26, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. I'm confused by the opening words of the article: "The Pulsing light foundation is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization in Europe". The "501(c)(3)" business seems to refer to some provision of United States law, and is total gobbledygook to anyone in Europe, so in what way is this an organization in Europe? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:52, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Le Monde, at least, hasn't covered the subject in the last year, so we can't rely on any of the other "sources" added by the same editor. I have been unable to find any other sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:19, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment This search appears to indicate that this is not a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:28, 28 September 2011 (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.