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 with no prejudice against speedy renomination (non-admin closure). Esquivalience ^t 00:33, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Swiss Network Operators Group[edit]

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

No indication of notability, though there are numerous passing mentions of the group. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:00, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This non-profit group is just for Switzerland and the real value is in it's mailinglist: see the archives: http://lists.swinog.ch/public/swinog/ so for the people within switzerland within the ISP industry the value of this group is very high. But on the other hand, I had a look at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Internet_Network_Operators%27_Groups and there are only a few other groups which have their own article:

They all don't have that much visibility in the public but are key for the people who operate in this field. But at the end of the day you might be right about your argument that there is no indication of notability. If you still think to go for the AfD, please go ahead and please don't forget to nominate also the other article which are there. Thanks! --Never stop exploring (talk) 13:23, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:38, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:29, 15 May 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.