Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fire and Blast Information Group


 * 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. ✗ plicit  06:42, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Fire and Blast Information Group

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Not seeing any coverage which would indicate WP:ORG is met. SmartSE (talk) 13:48, 14 September 2022 (UTC) Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  14:12, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:57, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:54, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete, search returns a lot of mentions but nothing indicative of sigcov to establish GNG, much less NORG. Eddie891 Talk Work 14:24, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * (cut the following from TP to this page) Eddie891 Talk Work 14:30, 21 September 2022 (UTC):

I was looking for technical information on fire & explosion engineering and noticed that the wiki page providing details on the FABIG group is potentially going to be deleted. I believe that keeping this page live is important as there are no other (not-for-profit) industry group specialised in the development and dissemination of technical knowledge on design against fire & explosion hazards, and therefore this page contributes to making people aware of the group and how to access information for the prevention of fire & explosion accidents. F&#38;GExpert (talk) 15:45, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:38, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I would however add that the information provided on the page seems a little out of date. I would be happy to update it the best I can if it does not get deleted. Thanks. F&#38;GExpert (talk) 15:46, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Please post your comments on the main discussion page. Most people won't see it here. ✗  plicit  14:13, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NORG. While an organization with a worthy mission, the organization has no significant coverage to speak of. Certainly nothing that could pass WP:ORGCRIT.4meter4 (talk) 05:33, 6 October 2022 (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.