![]() | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. |
Contested deletion
editThis page is not unambiguously promotional, because it offers encyclopedic knowledge about Duke of Windsor, the traditional 'Wibdsor knot' and one of the oldest Jermyn Street shirtmakers in London, Hawes & Curtis. More business information will be added.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.188.200.10 (talk)
If this page is taken down, then all the historic retailers' page should be taken down.
- Each page is evaluated on its own merits as other stuff exists but I have removed the speedy as it doesn't seem promotional enough to warrant it, though some of the language should be changed or removed; "renowned", for example. 331dot (talk) 10:03, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
- It was blatantly promotional, and certainly warranted speedy deletion per WP:G11: two administrators have already deleted it twice as WP:SPAM. So I've done a complete re-write. Please don't add the promotional content back again. Article's creator should also read WP:Multiple accounts: two user accounts have been posting identical content for this article, three times in a row. Dai Pritchard (talk) 10:34, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
- You can certainly hold that opinion; as I said, I didn't think it was promotional to the point where it warranted deletion, but what matters is that the page has been improved. 331dot (talk) 22:24, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
- And you didn't lift a finger to improve it. Just removed the speedy tag, posted some vaguely inclusionist sentiment on the talk page, and waited for someone else to remove the blatant WP:SPAM. You're welcome. Dai Pritchard (talk) 08:38, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
- I thought this was a group effort and that I was not expected to improve every article I come across on Wikipedia if I see a problem, whether I am knowledgeable in the subject or not, but OK, I'll remember that. 331dot (talk) 19:53, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
- And you didn't lift a finger to improve it. Just removed the speedy tag, posted some vaguely inclusionist sentiment on the talk page, and waited for someone else to remove the blatant WP:SPAM. You're welcome. Dai Pritchard (talk) 08:38, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
- You can certainly hold that opinion; as I said, I didn't think it was promotional to the point where it warranted deletion, but what matters is that the page has been improved. 331dot (talk) 22:24, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
- It was blatantly promotional, and certainly warranted speedy deletion per WP:G11: two administrators have already deleted it twice as WP:SPAM. So I've done a complete re-write. Please don't add the promotional content back again. Article's creator should also read WP:Multiple accounts: two user accounts have been posting identical content for this article, three times in a row. Dai Pritchard (talk) 10:34, 25 February 2015 (UTC)