911:
In addition, there seemed to be some consensus that the subject is somehow notable but I have failed to see any evidence of notability. Having a bunch of articles written about a video that the subject appeared in doesn't seem to satisfy the notability requirements on wikipedia and I have seen no discussion proving otherwise. Also, upon reviewing the previous AfD process, it almost seems like there was more a discussion about the reason it was proposed for deletion in the first place - ie. a bad faith nomination by an editor who was angry that their page was deleted (because their subject wasn't notable) and simply wanted to come on and find another page which also seemed un-notable and nominate it for deletion to prove a point. I can understand this isn't desirable behavior but I wonder if the desire to reject this sort of behavior played into the reasoning and final decision to keep (although I assure you I'm not accusing anyone of anything, just offering a possible reason for the discussion not having explored all the issues). I have no ulterior motive, from an objective standpoint I don't see the benefit of this page on
Knowledge, especially as it is entirely written by an editor with a close professional relationship. If subject was that notable, wouldn't she have gained enough recognition in the media for a completely partial and non-connected editor to create the article? For instance, I look back at the history of the article on Meghan Trainor. It was only created once "All About That Bass" became a hit song. The article was very simple just to acknowledge the fact that now people may want to know facts about Trainor, and to begin the process of collaboration to improve and grow the article with more sources and information - ie. the way Knowledge works best and is designed to work. That doesn't seem to be the case here, again, the only content being written by someone unlikely to be objective and neutral. The question is, would the article even exist if the subject's 'manager' hadn't written it? Also, if this isn't the proper place for this discussion, I understand, please help me to move the discussion to the proper place. However, every time I tried to nominate the page for deletion and to go to a normal AfD space for discussion, within a few hours someone would remove the nomination saying I had to raise the issue in DRV - which is why I did so.
258:- this, to my sensibilities, perhaps teeters near the line between needing a massive rewrite and needing a fundamental rewrite; the sources suffer from a lot of dubiousness (in independence, in reliability, in whether they're really about the company) that probably keep it just this side of A7, but making WP:N far from a sure thing. Combining these, I don't see it as having a snowball in a gasoline suit's chance in hell of making it through an AfD unless someone does a (massive/fundamental) rewrite. I would thus suggest anyone wanting to see an article on the subject ask for userfication to start writing a viable article, rather than perhaps nitpick to no gain.
489:(1) Nobody has bothered to talk about the fact that Fletchers handles 10% of the medical-negligence and serious-injury law cases in the UK (which includes Scotland and Northern Ireland, where I don't think it practices) nor that it won a "National Personal Injury Award" in 2012 nor that it won a Gold Award of Investors in People award (undated) nor that the
910:
I wasn't sure how to show a flaw with the previous deletion discussion as it said not to edit that page. The flaw is that there was no recognition in the previous discussion that this page has only been written by her manager, with no other contributors, and seems to only exist as a promotional tool.
890:
prior AfD. Jslix201 has failed to show any flaw with the process in the prior deletion discussion. As WilyD noted, a new AfD discussion can be started to look at the situation fresh and see if there is new consensus. However, I think the prior AfD was closed indicative of consensus five months ago,
614:
So your contention is that you were paid to write it, did a poor job which comes across to everyone here, but you, as unambiguous advertising, so the unpaid should have spent there time sorting it out for you? I really think the paid editing guidelines need updating to bar anyone with such poor
519:
states that consideration should be given to whether the company has had "any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science or education." Based on the amount of coverage given in the media to some of the seminal cases
797:
As per talk page, article has been created solely by someone with a close professional relationship, with no other contributors, and is of limited value to
Knowledge. Subject is also of questionable notability, appearing in only one project of note the focus of which was not the subject.
541:(3) It can be argued that Fletchers is Notable because "it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources." Nevertheless, this argument should be brought forwarded on Articles for Deletion and not here, which is a discussion about whether a particular criterion for
447:, 60, completed a July 2014 charity cycling challenge of 700 miles..." adequately summarizes half of the content in the article, and the other half is a list of accomplishments that the organization achieved written in a way to promote the organization. I would have deleted this as
388:. Yes, the wording is ostensibly neutral and the referencing is of a good quality. But through and through it is an advertisement and quite unsuitable here. If the present DRV is showing a hardening attitude against this sort of thing, I very much welcome it. Perhaps the wording of
493:
cited it as one of the "Best
Companies to Work for" in 2014 nor that it was recognized by the London Stock Exchange in 2014. Therefore, the claim that the article is "advertising," let alone "unambiguous advertising" cannot be sustained. The data comes from
828:, and literally anyone can remove a PROD tag for literally any reason whatsoever, so we can't really review that. One could consider a second AfD - but given the recentness of the last one, I'm sceptical the result would be any different.
245:
I'll endorse this. I can find a grand total of three sentences in the entire article that would survive unchanged if it were written neutrally; and the majority of it wouldn't belong in a neutral article even with rewording.
929:
700:
409:
Spam article. The declaration of COI was added about a week after the article was created, and it's very poor form for BeenAroundAWhile to have not declared their COI when starting this discussion.
545:
has been fulfilled. I look forward to such a discussion over there, and I'll certainly be glad to help other editors work with the article if if is survives such a discussion.
559:
825:
167:
The deleted page was not "unambiguous advertising." It was fully sourced to independent sources. The article concerns a leading firm of
English attorneys. The
520:
handled by
Fletchers, there is certainly an ambiguity in the claim that this proposed WP article is unambiguously advertising. I refer particularly to the
195:
143:
869:
he should renominate it so why it's now here I'll never know, Anyway If it is renominated again I won't be surprised if the article is kept anyway. –
48:
34:
314:
that such an apparently experienced editor doesn't recognise how inappropriate that content is, is quite scary. Paid or not that shouldn't be here --
297:
Obvious spam, this is an encyclopedia not a place for spam company marketing. It doesn't need a community review if it's obvious spam like this.
582:
43:
581:
if no notable content remains. However, if an article contains only blatant advertising, with no other useful content, it may be tagged per
158:
773:
478:
This discussion should be about whether or not the article is or is not unambiguous advertising, not about its defects as an article.
39:
629:
FWIW re your point 4, I think the argument is that getting to point 3 then it was tagged (and deleted), so yes it was followed. --
630:
616:
353:
315:
285:
846:
578:
525:
463:
172:
788:
21:
196:
http://www.northwestfyi.co.uk/news/legal/the-sunday-times-and-best-companies-award-fletchers-solicitors-with-star-status
349:
229:
The required declaration was made, either on the Talk page of the article or in the Edit summary; I can't remember.
605:
499:
234:
205:
180:
956:
723:
674:
542:
93:
17:
113:
336:
109:
70:
601:
366:
230:
201:
176:
891:
when the discussion closed—and that's all DRV is set up to do, to review the prior deletion actions. —
634:
620:
319:
302:
281:
945:
920:
902:
882:
858:
837:
807:
712:
663:
638:
624:
609:
470:
438:
418:
401:
380:
357:
340:
323:
306:
289:
267:
250:
238:
224:
209:
184:
82:
389:
168:
916:
803:
743:
708:
432:
377:
565:
516:
397:
332:
272:
That was unambiguously marketing, and it should not appear in our encyclopaedia in that form.—
502:, and the stories or articles in the sources were not advertising and they were not paid for.
452:
941:
898:
854:
659:
414:
220:
832:
560:
Knowledge:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#Special_note:_advertising_and_promotion
298:
273:
262:
215:
Will the nominator please clarify whether he has been paid to create/edit this article?
870:
569:
521:
456:
427:
75:
849:
to nominate an article for deletion. This discussion will probably be closed shortly.
933:
912:
799:
739:
704:
695:
448:
374:
393:
247:
79:
936:
on his talk page so he can make a proper nomination argument in the proper venue.
190:
937:
893:
850:
655:
410:
216:
829:
259:
654:. Poorly-disclosed paid editing, trivial coverage, not wanted here.
430:. Knowledge is not a replacement for an ad in your local newspaper.
930:
Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Katja
Glieson (2nd nomination)
701:
Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Katja
Glieson (2nd nomination)
74:– Closing slightly early but the outcome is so clear that I'm
816:- this appears to be a complaint about PRODs being removed
615:
judgement as this from participating in a paid capacity. --
524:
case, but the other cases could certainly be considered at
867:
821:
817:
780:
766:
758:
750:
392:
will need to be changed to reflect a changing climate.
150:
136:
128:
120:
574:
Erase remaining advertising content from the article
331:We're not a commercial directory to rent space in.
348:Clearly Promotional and unambiguous marketing .
558:(4) Finally, and most important, the steps at
191:http://www.mdcomms.co.uk/news/15-november-201/
826:Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Katja Glieson
446:Content like "<member of organization: -->
8:
699:– Closed as wrong venue - new AFD opened at
722:The following is an archived debate of the
515:(2) In addition, the relevant guideline at
92:The following is an archived debate of the
688:
63:
373:. That makes it fully sourced spam. --
824:. Article was previously kept at AfD
583:Knowledge:Criteria for speedy deletion
7:
577:Delete the article by listing it at
562:have not been followed. They state:
371:fully sourced to independent sources
959:of the page listed in the heading.
677:of the page listed in the heading.
171:deserves the right to weigh in at
28:
928:I have opened a second AfD here
955:The above is an archive of the
847:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
673:The above is an archive of the
579:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
173:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
76:putting this out of its misery
1:
982:
476:Very confusing discussion.
18:Knowledge:Deletion review
962:Please do not modify it.
946:23:28, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
921:20:57, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
903:16:22, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
883:14:27, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
859:10:06, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
838:09:00, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
808:05:02, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
729:Please do not modify it.
713:06:38, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
680:Please do not modify it.
664:10:03, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
639:19:46, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
625:18:45, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
610:04:23, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
526:WP:Articles for Deletion
471:14:43, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
439:19:01, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
419:01:52, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
402:20:14, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
381:17:36, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
358:22:24, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
341:20:59, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
324:18:52, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
307:17:19, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
290:17:17, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
268:16:32, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
251:13:16, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
239:12:51, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
225:08:18, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
210:05:15, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
185:22:13, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
99:Please do not modify it.
83:18:45, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
40:Deletion review archives
451:if I came across it as
350:Pharaoh of the Wizards
932:. I will also notify
500:WP: Reliable sources
369:that the article is
110:Fletchers Solicitors
71:Fletchers Solicitors
726:of the page above.
528:, where it belongs.
96:of the page above.
543:WP:Speedy deletion
969:
968:
687:
686:
288:
973:
964:
880:
875:
835:
793:
791:
783:
769:
761:
753:
731:
689:
682:
602:BeenAroundAWhile
468:
461:
435:
433:
367:BeenAroundAWhile
365:. I agree with
280:
278:
265:
231:BeenAroundAWhile
202:BeenAroundAWhile
177:BeenAroundAWhile
163:
161:
153:
139:
131:
123:
101:
64:
53:
33:
981:
980:
976:
975:
974:
972:
971:
970:
960:
957:deletion review
876:
871:
866:- I stated here
833:
787:
785:
779:
778:
772:
765:
764:
757:
756:
749:
748:
727:
724:deletion review
678:
675:deletion review
464:
457:
274:
263:
157:
155:
149:
148:
142:
135:
134:
127:
126:
119:
118:
97:
94:deletion review
62:
55:
54:
51:
46:
37:
31:
26:
25:
24:
12:
11:
5:
979:
977:
967:
966:
951:
950:
949:
948:
923:
905:
885:
861:
840:
814:Take no action
795:
794:
776:
770:
762:
754:
746:
734:
733:
718:
717:
716:
715:
685:
684:
669:
668:
667:
666:
648:
647:
646:
645:
644:
643:
642:
641:
627:
593:
592:
591:
590:
589:
588:
587:
586:
575:
572:
570:Knowledge:NPOV
551:
550:
549:
548:
547:
546:
534:
533:
532:
531:
530:
529:
522:lane filtering
508:
507:
506:
505:
504:
503:
482:
481:
480:
479:
441:
421:
404:
383:
360:
343:
326:
309:
292:
270:
253:
243:
242:
241:
199:
198:
193:
165:
164:
146:
140:
132:
124:
116:
104:
103:
88:
87:
86:
85:
78:. Endorsed. –
61:
56:
47:
38:
30:
29:
27:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
978:
965:
963:
958:
953:
952:
947:
943:
939:
935:
934:User:Jslix201
931:
927:
924:
922:
918:
914:
909:
906:
904:
900:
896:
895:
889:
886:
884:
881:
879:
874:
868:
865:
862:
860:
856:
852:
848:
844:
841:
839:
836:
831:
827:
823:
819:
815:
812:
811:
810:
809:
805:
801:
790:
782:
775:
768:
760:
752:
745:
741:
740:Katja Glieson
738:
737:
736:
735:
732:
730:
725:
720:
719:
714:
710:
706:
702:
698:
697:
696:Katja Glieson
693:
692:
691:
690:
683:
681:
676:
671:
670:
665:
661:
657:
653:
650:
649:
640:
636:
632:
628:
626:
622:
618:
613:
612:
611:
607:
603:
599:
598:
597:
596:
595:
594:
584:
580:
576:
573:
571:
567:
564:
563:
561:
557:
556:
555:
554:
553:
552:
544:
540:
539:
538:
537:
536:
535:
527:
523:
518:
514:
513:
512:
511:
510:
509:
501:
497:
492:
488:
487:
486:
485:
484:
483:
477:
474:
473:
472:
469:
467:
462:
460:
454:
450:
445:
442:
440:
437:
436:
434:Esquivalience
429:
425:
422:
420:
416:
412:
408:
405:
403:
399:
395:
391:
387:
384:
382:
379:
376:
372:
368:
364:
361:
359:
355:
351:
347:
344:
342:
338:
334:
330:
327:
325:
321:
317:
313:
310:
308:
304:
300:
296:
293:
291:
287:
283:
279:
277:
271:
269:
266:
261:
257:
254:
252:
249:
244:
240:
236:
232:
228:
227:
226:
222:
218:
214:
213:
212:
211:
207:
203:
197:
194:
192:
189:
188:
187:
186:
182:
178:
174:
170:
160:
152:
145:
138:
130:
122:
115:
111:
108:
107:
106:
105:
102:
100:
95:
90:
89:
84:
81:
77:
73:
72:
68:
67:
66:
65:
60:
57:
50:
45:
41:
36:
23:
19:
961:
954:
925:
907:
892:
887:
877:
872:
863:
842:
813:
796:
728:
721:
694:
679:
672:
652:Snow endorse
651:
496:news stories
495:
491:Sunday Times
490:
475:
465:
458:
443:
431:
423:
406:
390:WP:PROMOTION
385:
370:
362:
345:
333:Andy Dingley
328:
311:
294:
275:
255:
200:
169:WP:Community
166:
98:
91:
69:
58:
926:Wrong venue
843:Wrong venue
600:Sincerely,
59:21 May 2015
49:2015 May 22
35:2015 May 20
631:86.2.216.5
617:86.2.216.5
517:WP:Company
316:86.2.216.5
299:Joseph2302
276:S Marshall
913:Jslix201
800:Jslix201
705:Davewild
585:instead.
566:Clean up
375:RoySmith
44:2015 May
20: |
888:Endorse
789:restore
759:history
453:CST:CSD
444:Endorse
428:WP:SPAM
424:Endorse
407:Endorse
394:Thincat
386:Endorse
363:Endorse
346:Endorse
312:Endorse
256:Comment
248:Cryptic
159:restore
129:history
80:Spartaz
938:Safiel
908:Delete
894:C.Fred
851:Stifle
845:. Use
656:Stifle
411:Nick-D
378:(talk)
329:delete
295:Delete
217:Stifle
873:Davey
864:Close
781:watch
774:links
459:Chris
151:watch
144:links
52:: -->
16:<
942:talk
917:talk
899:talk
878:2010
855:talk
830:Wily
822:here
820:and
818:here
804:talk
767:logs
751:edit
744:talk
709:talk
660:talk
635:talk
621:talk
606:talk
568:per
466:lk02
426:per
415:talk
398:talk
354:talk
337:talk
320:talk
303:talk
260:Wily
235:talk
221:talk
206:talk
181:talk
137:logs
121:edit
114:talk
32:<
498:by
449:G11
22:Log
944:)
919:)
901:)
857:)
806:)
711:)
703:–
662:)
637:)
623:)
608:)
455:.
417:)
400:)
356:)
339:)
322:)
305:)
237:)
223:)
208:)
183:)
175:.
42::
940:(
915:(
897:(
853:(
834:D
802:(
792:)
786:(
784:)
777:|
771:|
763:|
755:|
747:|
742:(
707:(
658:(
633:(
619:(
604:(
413:(
396:(
352:(
335:(
318:(
301:(
286:C
284:/
282:T
264:D
246:—
233:(
219:(
204:(
179:(
162:)
156:(
154:)
147:|
141:|
133:|
125:|
117:|
112:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.