Talk:Fighters+Lovers
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 22 December 2006. The result of the discussion was keep. |
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
AfD
editThis company is not notable and I intend to list this article for deletion. If you think the article should stay - please explain the reasons here. Thanks, --Gabi S. 07:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
- I do think we can keep it. The International Viewpoint article is notable. --Duncan 20:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- I agree that in its current state the article is not notable but the problem is not that the articles subject is not intresting but instead that the article is written poorly and ain't updated. We would ned t rewrite most of it. I might do that at a later time... Mjateznik (talk) 14:43, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Before pushing your POVs please suggest changes here.--Zer0~Gravity (Roger - Out) 16:21, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Original text under "Criticism" contradicted itself, it read "The case against Fighters+Lovers has been criticised in Denmark for its cost. So far the price of the court cases has exceeded 1 mio DKK (US$ 200.00) which seems out of proportion given the fact that the amount to be sent was only 25.000 DKK (US$ 5000)". This indicates the latter amount ("amount to be sent US $5000") was the lesser amount, which is impossible if court costs were US$ 200). The source was correct (court cases exceeded 1 million DKK (US$ 200,000)but text was not so I have made the change to reflect this (also, since when does 1 mio in english mean 1 million?), I have clarified that as well. http://politiken.dk/kultur/article568544.ece —Preceding unsigned comment added by Verifiablecitation (talk • contribs) 06:06, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV
editI've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:
- This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
- There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
- It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
- In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.
- This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:25, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Needs to be updated.
editThis page needs to be updated with at least the judgement from the Danish Supreme Court, so as not not appear totally outdated. Otherwise it might as well be deleted. 188.181.78.27 (talk) 18:48, 21 October 2023 (UTC)