Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Danish UNIX User 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 keep. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 15:00, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Danish UNIX User Group

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

fails WP:ORG, hardly any third party coverage. [1]. there is not even a Danish WP article on this. LibStar (talk) 13:50, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I made the appropriate cross-linkage to .dk for the history of the DK top level ___domain, which DKUUG was instrumental in. Can't tell the story of the Danish internet without this group. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 16:05, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added a self-published history of the group, in Danish, as a link; can't read Danish well enough to decode more than the acronyms and the general sense of things. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 17:05, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A relevant Danish page is DK_Hostmaster_A/S. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 17:08, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A single google search does not notability determine. Try searching for dkuug.--J Clear (talk) 02:11, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I used google news not google. google is not recommended because of WP:GOOGLEHITS. you haven't actually provided evidence of third party coverage of this. LibStar (talk) 12:38, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You will note I did not mention hit counts. As WP:GOOGLEHITS states, the quality of the search results is important. The Google search would tend to support the two criteria in WP:ORG for Non-Commercial organizations. DKUUG acts as the national representative to international standards such as POSIX. Third party verification can be found in the Google results. --J Clear (talk) 15:58, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically here is third party confirmation of their POSIX involvement. --J Clear (talk) 16:06, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question Is anyone finding anything in the way of non-trivial coverage from reliable third party sources? I am not. I see two keep !votes but am still not seeing the sources. Help me, please! JBsupreme (talk) 21:47, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I find this professional association to be established. The fact that there are limited sources in English on it should not impair notability, as this is - obviously - a Danish guild. What matters is that the article also does have some coverage from English language sources, as are those referenced in the article itself. Arguably, the fact that there are more sources on Alcide De Gasperi in Italian is not a good reason to delete it. Same goes for this one article.--Grasshopper6 (talk) 23:11, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Mentioned in local computing press, and even in the mainstream Jyllands-Posten. User groups seldom have that kind of coverage. Pcap ping 14:18, 3 January 2010 (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.