Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roodeplaat Research Laboratories


 * 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 no consensus.  Sandstein  12:29, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Roodeplaat Research Laboratories

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No indication of notability  Zack mann  (Talk to me/What I been doing) 03:35, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:22, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:22, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment: A UN report (now referenced into the article) features around 30 pages on this front company and its activities. However, I'm undecided whether this and other such front companies (e.g. Delta G Scientific Company) merit individual articles rather than redirects to the Project Coast of which they were engineered to provide covert fronts. AllyD (talk) 08:10, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (talk) 17:32, 5 November 2018 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   18:26, 12 November 2018 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist for opinions on the sources the IP user posted
 * Keep -- First of all, "no indication of notability" is not even a deletion criterion. We decide notability on the basis of sources in the world, not on the basis of sources in the article.  And there are plenty of sources in the world for this subject.  Here are a few:
 * And so on and on and on. A clear pass of GNG and a clear failure of BEFORE. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 19:17, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * And so on and on and on. A clear pass of GNG and a clear failure of BEFORE. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 19:17, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * And so on and on and on. A clear pass of GNG and a clear failure of BEFORE. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 19:17, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * And so on and on and on. A clear pass of GNG and a clear failure of BEFORE. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 19:17, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 22:58, 19 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete-- Agreed with AllyD that the article does not merit an individual article. UN report may be a sufficient source for the information to be included within the broader Project Coast article, but it is not enough to justify an individual article. A search for the article topic turns up only a few sources with questionable reliability. There are several other articles: (e.g. Lema (company) and Delta G Scientific Company) that are merely lists of the same front organizations associated with Project Coast, and are lacking in sufficient reliable sources. Keeping Roodeplaat Research Laboratories article as it stands currently only perpetuates this issue. Propose redirecting this article to Project Coast, and reincorporating notable, reliably sourced info into that article. GroundFloor (talk) 14:55, 21 November 2018 (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.