Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/European Association for Biometrics


 * 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 keep. Improve! Missvain (talk) 00:33, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

European Association for Biometrics

 * – ( View AfD View log )

De-prodded. Does not appear to pass WP:GNG. WP:BEFORE found some passing mentions in books (but not significant coverage), and a lot of results from https://biometricupdate.com/, which appears to be a press release republishing website (at the bottom it says "Submit a Press Release"). Recently added sources have various problems (not secondary, self published). – Novem Linguae (talk) 09:40, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. – Novem Linguae  (talk) 09:40, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. – Novem Linguae  (talk) 09:40, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep, Sources appeared difficult to be found but there are references like, , , which may be considered as reputed, independent secondary sources. Chirota (talk) 18:01, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  14:30, 30 April 2021 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:29, 7 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep, since first request for deletion the article has been considerably upgraded and sourced - please consider the significance of their activities taken. LukaszKatlewa (talk) 05:49, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete: per nom, fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. WP:BEFORE show only passing mentions in books, lacking independent sigcov CommanderWaterford (talk) 22:32, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep The article definitely needs better and more current sources, but it is worth keeping. It has been substantially improved already as a result of the AfD nomination. ABT021 (talk) 15:41, 15 May 2021 (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.