Talk:Safe Planet

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


 * Remember WP:BEFORE. I just had a quick look on google news, and found.
 * 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)