| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
Unsourced content
editI have just reverted a large update to this article that was entirely unsourced and possibly original research. I'm happy to help research the content if the original editor would like to work with me on it. Rinkle gorge (talk) 22:45, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Happy to work with you on this - please let me know how I can help. Najemhasan (talk) 21:39, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Contested deletion
editThis article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because... Lots of excellent sources. Times. Mirror. Random House. BBC. --GRuban (talk) 20:49, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
- It dosn't assert any importance, if he is important the artcle should assert it, and prove it. CombatWombat42 (talk) 20:58, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
- "one of the United Kingdom's most notorious bank robbers" isn't an assertion of importance? Anyway, if it's speedily deleted, there's no time to prove it. --GRuban (talk) 21:08, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
- The Daily Mirror is not a reliable source, and Random House is a primary source. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 00:15, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
- The Daily Mirror is indeed not a good source. The bit that particularly stands out from it is the claim of being "Britain's youngest armed robber". Really? How do we know that? I'm guessing they probably meant that at the time of a conviction he was the youngest person to have been found guilty of the offence of armed robbery. That isn't what the newspaper actually says, of course, because it is a pretty rubbish red-top tabloid that prefers sensationalism and pithy wording to accuracy. There is no way that newspaper or any other can possibly substantiate what it does in fact say: the youngest may never have been caught, identified etc. - Sitush (talk) 03:19, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
- "one of the United Kingdom's most notorious bank robbers" isn't an assertion of importance? Anyway, if it's speedily deleted, there's no time to prove it. --GRuban (talk) 21:08, 5 November 2014 (UTC)