Deletion of World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology (2nd nomination)

Comment: Plenty of coverage in independent reliable sources as detailed above, and even the blogs are of the kind permitted per . The nominator seems to have either failed to perform a proper , or has an axe to grind here. &ndash;&#8239
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:SPS||WP:BEFORE)

Comment: per Doug Weller and has sufficient coverage and passes 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: Certainly there is sufficient coverage, already by the sources listed in the article, to justify notability per  and . There are many other examples of nontrivial coverage, e.g. Times Higher Educationhttps://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/predatory-conferences-now-outnumber-official-scholarly-events, Japan Timeshttps://www.japantimes.co.jp/community/2016/05/11/issues/predatory-conferences-stalk-japans-groves-academia/#.Wf8ieraFQ0o, etc. There may be issues with neutrality of the language currently used in the article, but, at least at first reading, the statements appear to be well supported by the sources cited. The nominator has not mentioned the existence of any other published sources that present and discuss more positive info about the subject of the article. If such sources exist, or if there is some positive counter-info/counter-arguments regarding WASET present in the sources already cited, such sources/info could be added to the article.  The proper place to address the issues of neutrality and the language being used is at the article talk page, not by deletion of an article on a notable topic of significant current interest
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:ORG)

Comment: It is as though this nomination is made without a thorough  accessment
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:BEFORE)