Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Consolidated supervision


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   delete. Nothing was provided to prove that the term itself is notable, only used. seresin ( ¡? ) 06:58, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Consolidated supervision

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (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 &mdash; 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  and .  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 - m  t  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)
 * Keep and improve because it doesn't look like spam to me, although the article lacks context and is simply quite bad as is. Niczar ⏎ 18:55, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - personal essay that doesn't explain what the subject actually is (no context). Proper citation and sourcing is a necessary, but not sufficient condition for acceptability of an article under WP:V, WP:N, and WP:RS. It might be better to scrape clean and start anew. B.Wind (talk) 03:46, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.