Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SEMAN


 * 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. Tone 07:37, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

SEMAN

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG; the vast majority of mentions I can find are WP:ROUTINE coverage, there's not much more out there than just what's in the article, which is a single sentence. Nathan2055talk - contribs 23:22, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 23:25, 2 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 23:25, 2 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 23:25, 2 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 23:25, 2 August 2020 (UTC)


 * The first source cited contains a lot more than is in our article. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:15, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it has been previously PROD'd (via summary). --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Logs: ,

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio 07:42, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:GNG; a few trade refs, a self-published web site. Wikipedia is not a directory. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:12, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Improve. As it is, the article is indeed too meagre to remain. Best would be to add some "beef" - if that cannot be done then I reluctantly admit it should be deleted. Jan olieslagers (talk) 22:36, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:NCORP, I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability.  HighKing++ 13:49, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep There appears to be quite a lot of sources on SEMAN, certainly not trivial mentions - . Should pass WP:GNG. Hzh (talk) 17:52, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 05:48, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete since it Fails the WP:GNG and WP:NCORP notability guidelines. Even with the new sources provided in the AfD. Just to break down why they don't work, the first is a law. Which doesn't work for notability because it's a primary source. The second is a glorified fluff piece press release advert that seriously lacks neutrality. Same for the third and forth. The fifth link seems to be dead due to a database error. So that one is a no go. The sixth source is possibly usable for notability, but it's about the release of a product (the same product that every other article about them seems to be about. So, really there should just be an article about the product if all these sources work for notability), and WP:NCORP says product releases are not notable. The 7th is an interview and about "aircraft", not "SEMAN." So, that one doesn't work either. Which, sadly, leaves nothing to make the company notable. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:55, 19 August 2020 (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.