Talk:SAGEM

Fair use rationale for Image:SAGEM.JPG
Image:SAGEM.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 10:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Consider revising "among one of the world's largest." The phrase should either be "among the world's largest" or "one of the world's largest."24.0.17.83 23:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Merge from SAGEM Sigma 30
SAGEM Sigma 30 is a product made by SAGEM, and I'm not sure if it should have its own article. Should it be merged here? Is it sufficiently notable that it should have its own article? Google produces 64 hits, first of which is wikipedia. WLU (talk) 14:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC). --

Sounds a good idea --Farialima (talk) 17:24, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose - It's a product, not a company. WP covers many products. If notability is not proven, it should be nominated for deletion, but product details shouldn't be on a company page. - BilCat (talk) 20:04, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 05:10, 30 April 2016 (UTC)