Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IT Bransjen


 * 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   merge to IDG. Master of Puppets - Call me MoP! :D  22:45, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

IT Bransjen

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Content not of wide interest BwB (talk) 21:27, 8 August 2009 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget  22:33, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - (87269) 2000 OO67 is also not of wide interest. What is the reason for deletion? -- Whpq (talk) 13:22, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Caution: WP:WAX. Not that the nom's rationale is any better... --Cyber cobra (talk) 05:21, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 23:41, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete or merge with IDG. The publication in question comes from the Norwegian branch of the enormous publishing house IDG, but it looks like a specialist magazine for a very narrow readership, even by Norwegian standards. Perhaps IDG Norway deserves a separate section or even an article since this national branch has been covered in reliable sources, and in that case "IT-bransjen" may deserve a mention as one of several things they publish. I cannot see that there has been wide coverage or interest of this particular publication however. Sjakkalle  (Check!)  12:08, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete per WP:NN. --Lithorien (talk) 00:19, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge/redirect - Why propose for a deletion when a merge/redirect to IDG would be more fitting in this circumstance. Thanks ShoesssS Talk 02:12, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge with IDG. Not notable itself anyway — vvvt 09:20, 22 August 2009 (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.