In a recent series of edits, an IP/anon editor (80.111.106.242) has largely blanked the article. Including the lead and cited information on the subject's establishment and disestablishment. With, in the one case where an edit summary was provided, a claim that content was "unsubstantiated" and "biased". In terms of the "unsubstantiated" claim, I do not see how this can be asserted. When the content is supported by otherwise reliable and mainstream news sources (Irish Independent and Irish Examiner) and is therefore very much "substantiated". In terms of the "bias" claim, given that the article (in its original promotional form) was created and expanded by apparent COI/SPA accounts, the claim of "bias" can only (IMO) be read as "I don't like that this less than promotional content is now also included". A push for removal of content that the contributor doesn't like. Ideally the removing editor would explain (here and as suggested) why and how these news sources (and the content they support) can be considered "unsubstantiated" or "biased". Guliolopez (talk) 13:45, 15 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
