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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:57, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Exohood[edit]

Exohood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. On top fails WP:NORG and WP:PRODUCT. Hence, calling for an AfD discussion. - Hatchens (talk) 16:22, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cryptocurrency-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 16:22, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:24, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:47, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I'm normally one to advocate keeping articles when possible, but this one clearly does not yet meet notability guidelines. Looked them up on google to be sure, and only external sources I could find consisted merely of brief mentions in larger lists. Yitz (talk) 12:55, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.