Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vpmi (2nd nomination)


 * 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. John254 00:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Vpmi
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

I deleted this article after a previous discussion at AFD but was provided further sources by the author. I'm not completely persuaded that this now demonstrates notability but its close enough that this deserves a fresh discussion. As this is a procedural nomination I abstain from an opinion Spartaz Humbug! 11:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

These are the sources provided by the author. The full discussion can be found at my talk page.















Spartaz Humbug! 11:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC) 
 * “PM Network Case Study: VPMi.”, PM Network July, 2007.
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  jonny - m  t  02:10, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep Need to provide a reason to delete. Colonel Warden (talk) 03:38, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Why isn't the article based around Virtual Communication Services, the parent company?-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 04:06, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Vpmi is a better search term - I recognised it instantly. Colonel Warden (talk) 04:31, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Isn't that what redirects are for?-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 04:34, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. The article could stand a rewrite but the references demonstrate notability. I would redirect the company to the product in this case, and move to VPMi. --Dhartung | Talk 05:53, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep "Multiple, independent, reliable sources" -- looks like it to me. -- Renesis (talk) 03:39, 24 February 2008 (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.