Talk:Hawes & Curtis
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. |
Contested deletion
[edit]This 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)