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. Missvain (talk) 06:50, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Industrigruppen JAS[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It's not clear why this article is notable Verbal.noun (talk) 09:35, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Consortium of several major companies to build major military aircraft. The Swedish WP has a much longer article, including a number of very good references. DGG ( talk ) 17:33, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Substandard nomination that really can't be taken seriously. --Hegvald (talk) 18:04, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The decision was made to lift the section out of the article about JAS 39 Gripen into an article of its own since it was relevant but the information not directly related to the aircraft article. BP OMowe (talk) 22:44, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.