Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UK & Ireland SAP Users 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   no consensus.  MBisanz  talk 00:51, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

UK & Ireland SAP Users Group
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)


 * Queried speedy delete. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 17:46, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:COMPANY. - Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) 18:16, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  -- the wub  "?!"  23:13, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I have added references to meet the requirement that an organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. --86.14.200.93 (talk) 10:12, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep I am not sure if this makes any difference but the entries are no different to the already accepted ASUG (Americas SAP User Group) entry--Alan B (talk) 13:35, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - The article needs a lot of work but it's very clear that the coverage from ZDNet and Computer Weekly shows that it meets the requirements set at WP:CORP. --  At am a chat 17:08, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hers fold  (t/a/c) 19:33, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per Lilac Soul, and the fact that it is completely unintelligible and supported by few decent sources to establish notability and confer verifiability. ╟─ Treasury Tag ► contribs ─╢ 20:08, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - It's a bit extreme to call it "unintelligible" isn't it? I certainly don't have a problem reading it. It desperately needs improvement, but that's not a reason to delete it, that's a reason to fix it. As far as "few decent sources"... You're actually supporting the assertion that this article is notable, WP:N basically states that if it has a subject covered by a few good sources then it passes. ;) --  At am a chat 16:50, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Evidently notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:22, 4 March 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.