Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Planning planet

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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 08:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Planning planet

contested prod, lacks significant coverage in 3rd party references. Nearly all provided references are primary sources and those that aren't dont mention this company, RadioFan (talk) 11:19, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:13, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is it Possible to get an extension on the deletion date? I can get a mention on other websites, but I need some extra time. could I get an extra week? Piers1123 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Piers1123 (talk • contribs) 13:34, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability needs to be verified by independent, reliable sources. See WP:V, WP:N and WP:RS for the applicable policy. Nothing comes up on the relevant google searches, so I doubt that reliable sources will emerge.--Talain (talk) 15:29, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. There's no indication that this specialized trade website meets either the business or website notability guidelines, but since it's obvious advertising, lawyering about notability is beside the point. The bulk of the article would appear to be vanity resumes of the principals: largest database of planners and project managers ... the number increasing at an average rate of one new member every 45 minutes.... over twenty years experience in the area of technology and software development.... twenty years of planning and project management experience.... - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 17:11, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the grounds in which you propose said things. However, if the subject does meet criteria in the future, seeing as the general intent is for deletion, would it be possible to re-make the page? As far as I understand it should be. Piers1123

Comment. Yes you can, but you will have to address the lack of independent, reliable secondary source coverage that comprises the concern of this AfD. If you just recreate it without improving it then it will be speedily deleted per WP:G4--Talain (talk) 20:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And if you wish, you or I can copy the current text to a subpage of a user page, where you can edit it until you think it is ready to be moved into article space. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 03:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thank you, I've created the subpage. Thanks guys. Piers1123 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Piers1123 (talk • contribs) 09:30, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.