Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Research Symbiont Award


 * 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. ST47 (talk) 14:56, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Research Symbiont Award

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:GNG. Bbb23 (talk) 11:59, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions.  CASSIOPEIA(talk) 12:25, 18 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep.	It seem verifiable given that there is a primary source for the data, which is the award web page. It is not original research.	It does not advertise, merely informing. In fact, it was built on a template for another science award. It is not a hoax. Notability is not a criterion since it is not a biography, not about music, not about musicians, not about a company or corporation, not a fictional topic, and not about web-specific content. Therefore, it does NOT meet the criteria for deletion and should NOT be deleted. It seems there is some sort of voting; unfortunately none of the links supplied describe how to do that.  But I clearly vote to keep it.  I don't see how it could rightfully be deleted given the stated criteria.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by ADP85xzVcQD (talk • contribs) 12:37, 18 June 2019 (UTC) ADP85xzVcQD (talk) 12:42, 18 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment. My signed text was edited by someone else.  That editing actually eliminated most of the argument and the structure for the argument and support for the argument--which was based off the criteria for deletion Wikipedia page.  While I'm sure it was done in good faith, it is poor form (e.g. one would not open a letter someone wrote addressed to someone else, change it, and put it back in the envelope; likewise, one would not edit an e-mail they were forwarding without disclosing that). I respectfully request that someone revert it.  I know how to, and I know I can, revert it myself. But every time I revert I get threatened by an editor that they will delete my account; so I don't feel comfortable doing it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by ADP85xzVcQD (talk • contribs) 15:33, 18 June 2019 (UTC)


 * delete Secondary coverage is needed. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:28, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete "it exists" is not a criteria for inclusion on an encyclopedia. There is no independent, in-depth coverage. Praxidicae (talk) 15:53, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete, but see my comments at Articles for deletion/Research Parasite Award, FWIW, "research parasite" is a potential article Amkilpatrick (talk) 16:23, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Primary coverage is not enough to proof notability. --MrClog (talk) 20:29, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:GNG since it lacks secondary sources. Was also recently created by a now discredited and indefed editor. Newshunter12 (talk) 07:43, 25 June 2019 (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.