" 

 == RE: BEEBUG == 

 Hi. I don't suspect you're monitoring this, but just in case you are I thought I'd drop you a note. Another user has rewritten the BEEBUG article from scratch and it's now being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BEEBUG. Just in case you have anything to add while that discussion's live, I thought it might be appropriate to notify you. Please note that this is not in any way intended as canvassing, but you've evidently been involved in issues surrounding the previous deletion and therefore this note seems not inappropriate. The discussion is likely to remain open until at least 6/7 November, after which it will be relisted for further period(s) or closed. As it stands at the moment, I'd expect to see a close of 'no conensus' (or possibly 'keep'). It's completely fine by me if you wish not to comment at all. But if you do, I'd advise that you clearly state your conflict of interest. If you have any records of further reliable sources about the magazine which could be used to improve the article, that would be most appreciated. (The same goes for the company itself, but such content belongs in a separate article, in my opinion.) Thanks for reading.    "