Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OmniPeace (2nd nomination)


 * 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   keep. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 20:32, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

OmniPeace
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

Lack of reliable sources which establish notability. Versa geek  23:50, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment The nomination appears to be based on just the most recent changes, which seem to have mistakenly removed sources. Please take a look at the previous version where many suitable sources are given. I have offered the likely COI bearing account some advice, and will continue to attempt to help them move on to collaborating on improvement rather than trying to, apparently, control the article. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 00:01, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment I've reverted the article to before the spam content, it now includes references. OSbornarfcontribs. 02:51, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

 
 * Keep I've rewrote this after some issues raised in an OTRS ticket, and I see plenty of coverage in reliable sources. However, the concerns raised in the edit summaries of should not be ignored, although I am unclear as to what some of the exact problems are. Relevant OTRS tickets, for those who can access them: 2011120510021835, 2011112210000121, 2011062110015378, and 2011082410000893. / ƒETCH  COMMS  /  01:20, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 00:28, 7 February 2012 (UTC)




 * Keep The article in its current state adequately refutes the rationale of the nom. J04n(talk page) 01:04, 7 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - article is well-written, on a notable topic, and very well sourced with inline citations. Chiswick Chap (talk) 02:41, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Reflects the requisite RS coverage.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:21, 9 February 2012 (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.