Talk:Safe Planet

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Safe Planet article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

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

Articles for creation

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
	This article was accepted on 29 January 2011 by reviewer Chzz (talk · contribs).

International relations: United Nations Start‑class Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
Start	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject United Nations.

Organizations

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Human rights Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Delete?

This article has a clear majority of primary sources. Why is it notable? Shootbamboo (talk) 02:47, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Remember WP:BEFORE. I just had a quick look on google news, and found [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6].

To me, that represents "significant coverage in independent reliable sources", thus satisfying WP:GNG.

However, if you disagree, WP:AFD is probably the most appropriate venue.

I agree, it needs a lot of improvement; although I 'accepted' it via AFC I regret I have not had the time to do so; if I remember correctly, at that time there was a backlog of some 150 "AFC's" which I reviewed - consequently, I did not have enough time to thoroughly clean up those I accepted. Cheers, Chzz ► 02:58, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shoot, your delete rationale is not consistent with Wp:GNG which requires coverage in two reliable secondary sources. The % of primary sources used in the article is irrelevant. If Safe Planet is not covered by at least two secondary RS, then indeed it might not be notable, but that, not the % of primary sources is the inclusion criteria. --Mike Cline (talk) 11:27, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation and links. Shootbamboo (talk) 23:23, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]