Talk:Neil Woodford
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Substantial rewrite? An absurd claim given that the article is only three sentences long, and only one of those sentences sounds even vaguely like an advert (the last one), so it's silly to claim it would be hard to change.
He's clearly notable - being in charge of over £12 billion of investor's money makes him a powerful figure, this is ridiculous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nssdfdsfds (talk • contribs)
[edit] 05 December 2006
I unblanked this talk page when I saw the article had been recreated. This is in the deletion log twice in the past week:
- 01:54, 5 December 2006 Eagle 101 (Talk | contribs) deleted "Neil Woodford" (CSD G11 - Advertising - Please see our guidelines.)
- 12:03, 1 December 2006 JzG (Talk | contribs) deleted "Neil Woodford" (Spammy, almost certainly WP:AUTO. And I've never heard of him even though I live less than ten miles from Perpetual's head office...)
Please consult the page on deletion review if you want to appeal the speedy deletion, rather than recreating the page again. Mytildebang 22:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- The talk page was blanked because the talk page refers to a previous version of the article and no longer makes sense. On the first deletion the talk page was deleted, so I assume it is standard procedure to do so, hence I blanked the talk page, which referred to comments made by another user about another article no longer extant.
- I have no connection with the subject, who is, one assumes, a multimillionare with concerns other than Wikipedia. I do not have anything invested with his funds, although I have considered doing so; I am however aware that he has a considerable notability among UK investors/business, though I am myself no more than a layman in these matters. The content is different from the previous two versions and there is nothing it that sound even vaguely like advertising. I recreated the page because that was what JzG told me to do when I asked him to recreate it when he claimed that the subject is not notable. All three versions are different, I might add.
- It is somewhat annoying to have these things deleted without due process, as it appears it only takes two people to delete the article, regardless of whether the subject is of relevance or not. Nonetheless, I believe that this third revision is a perfectly reasonable, non-spam article about a notable person. Nssdfdsfds 22:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- As I said, please look into deletion review, which is pretty much the definition of due process here. Mytildebang 22:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- If the page is reasonable as it stands it should not be deleted. It is not the same as the previous versions, and neither is it spam. If there is something wrong with it, please could you identify it. It's very tedious getting tied up in endless process. If the previous two versions were not up-to-scratch, then they should not have been undeleted, and so it makes sense to create new ones, so the deletion review process is hardly relevant at this point, unless it is your intention to delete the page regardless of any changes as against the previous version, purely on the basis of it having been deleted before. As the current versions is (you have not said otherwise, other than saying it has been deleted twice already so it should be deleted again) ok, it's pretty boring to have to go round in endless circles. I do not really want to get into boring and drawn out discussions, it would be a lot simpler to just change whatever it is you think's wrong with the page (you haven't said), than doing this. Nssdfdsfds 22:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- As I said, please look into deletion review, which is pretty much the definition of due process here. Mytildebang 22:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Advertising
Since the grounds for deletion are that the article is claimed to be advertising, as I cannot see anything in it that even sounds vaguely like advertising - could someone explain what aspect of the article looks like advertising, or kindly remove the notice.
Thanks Nssdfdsfds 22:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
