This article was created via the article wizard and reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow unregistered 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.
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.
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.
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)
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)
Thanks for the explanation and links. Shootbamboo (talk) 23:23, 2 June 2011 (UTC)