Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greater Birmingham & Solihull Local Enterprise Partnership


 * 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   keep. SarahStierch (talk) 19:47, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Greater Birmingham & Solihull Local Enterprise Partnership

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

promotional bureaucratic buzzwords, from beginning to end.  DGG ( talk ) 23:58, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  czar   &middot;   &middot;  06:50, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  czar   &middot;   &middot;  06:50, 31 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment we do not delete articles because the current content is poor or even dire. Instead, we delete the crap and/or improve the content, or redirect. Please state a valid reason for the proposed deletion. --Mais oui! (talk) 08:00, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep -- LEPs were the presnet government's replacement for Regional Development Agencies. They are still bedding in, but are potentially very significant organisations.  The answer to a bad article is normally not to delete it, but to improve it.  We ougfht to have articles on all 39 LEPs.  Peterkingiron (talk) 12:55, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * delete fails WP:ORG. gnews reveals 4 passing mentions in local press. Needs substantial wider coverage. LibStar (talk) 04:24, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep -- Interest declared as the author. Can take 'government buzz words' on the chin as criticism. However, the LEPs are indeed the key vehicle for economic growth and have their own page. There should indeed be articles on all of the LEPs, it's surely unfair to punish those who are proactive? There has been extensive media coverage in national publications as shown in the citations on the work of the GBSLEP. dankzy (talk) 16:04, 3 June 2013(UTC) — dankzy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep These organisations are of high importance to local people.--Abramsky (talk) 11:34, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 20:17, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

 Keep AFD is not cleanup; references comport with WP:GNG. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 21:23, 6 June 2013 (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.