Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Consolidated supervision: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Relisting debate |
Pop Secret (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
<hr style="width:50%;"/> |
<hr style="width:50%;"/> |
||
:<span style="color:Chocolate;">'''Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.'''</span><br/><small>Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, [[User:jonny-mt|<span style="color:#297AA3">'''jonny'''</span>]]-[[Special:Contributions/jonny-mt|<span style="color:#A3293D">'''m'''</span>]][[User talk:jonny-mt|<span style="color:#3DA329">'''t'''</span>]] 05:39, 4 July 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- from Template:Relist --> |
:<span style="color:Chocolate;">'''Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.'''</span><br/><small>Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, [[User:jonny-mt|<span style="color:#297AA3">'''jonny'''</span>]]-[[Special:Contributions/jonny-mt|<span style="color:#A3293D">'''m'''</span>]][[User talk:jonny-mt|<span style="color:#3DA329">'''t'''</span>]] 05:39, 4 July 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- from Template:Relist --> |
||
*'''Keep and improve''' as recommended above on the basis of links substantiating the use of the term. I'd also observe that there doesn't seem to be any indicia of spam/advertising in the article, so I'm not sure what that objection originated in. [[User:Pop Secret|Pop Secret]] ([[User talk:Pop Secret|talk]]) 08:43, 4 July 2008 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 08:43, 4 July 2008
- Consolidated supervision (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Insufficient context, dicdef, no reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 19:48, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Per WP:SPAM. Appears to have no intent but to promote the subject. It might be an organisation, but it might be dicdef. Insufficient context to make it clear; fails WP:Context, WP:N, WP:V and WP:RS and possibly WP:DICDEF. PeterSymonds (talk) 19:51, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per PeterSymonds --Numyht (talk) 20:42, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
- Speedy delete per criterion G11 — blatant spam. --Mizu onna sango15/Discuss 20:51, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:03, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep and improve - seems to be a legitimate business term that describes a unique phenomenon (thus not dicdef) that isn't covered elsewhere here. See [1] and [2]. There's useful content here, even if uncited and incomplete. Obviously not spam so those !votes are impertinent - it's not advertising anybody's theory, business, service, etc., and the term is one for a government-mandated banking practice, not for an organization or company. Wikidemo (talk) 21:54, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep, while the article lacks application of MoS and context, it is obviously (in light of the sources provided by Wikidemo) a verifiable term; however the prose completely fails to explain the subject, and how it differs from financial supervision, of which it seems to claim itself a seed of. The most perplex issue here is how anyone could accuse this of spam; I hope some of those using the term could elaborate—unless they have completely misunderstood and though the article was about an organization rather than a business term, which would be rather alarming. Arsenikk (talk) 17:22, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jonny-mt 05:39, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
- Keep and improve as recommended above on the basis of links substantiating the use of the term. I'd also observe that there doesn't seem to be any indicia of spam/advertising in the article, so I'm not sure what that objection originated in. Pop Secret (talk) 08:43, 4 July 2008 (UTC)