A tag has been placed on Bank Charges, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 11, as well as the guidelines on spam.
If you can indicate why the subject of this article is not blatant advertising, you may contest the tagging. To do this, please add {{
hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on
the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would help make it encyclopedic, as well as adding any
citations from
reliable sources to ensure that the article will be
verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this.
Realkyhick
14:02, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
- A crime? My, such hyperbole! No this article violates multiple Wikipedia policies. First of all, it is a blatant violation of neutral point of view policy, as it very much advocates a particular view or position. Secondly, the article appears to exist almost solely to promote companies or organizations which fit this point of view, and which stand to profit from the publicity given by this article, thus violating advertising prohibitions. Your cause may be just, but Wikipedia is not a place to promote or denigrate any cause. It is an encyclopedia. This article must be deleted. Realkyhick 16:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Fine! Awa n hey a right gid feck tae yer sel then ya jumped up ole fert!-- Bank Buster 19:03, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
- I have no idea what that means, and that's probably a good thing. However, you'll note that I actually improved the article considerably, adding several sources. If it got The Beeb's attention, I'd say that's notable enough.
- By the way, are you Stephen Hone? If you are, good job! Don't know too many people with the cajones to do something like this. Realkyhick 00:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Bank Charges, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 11, as well as the guidelines on spam.
If you can indicate why the subject of this article is not blatant advertising, you may contest the tagging. To do this, please add {{
hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on
the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would help make it encyclopedic, as well as adding any
citations from
reliable sources to ensure that the article will be
verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this.
Realkyhick
14:02, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
- A crime? My, such hyperbole! No this article violates multiple Wikipedia policies. First of all, it is a blatant violation of neutral point of view policy, as it very much advocates a particular view or position. Secondly, the article appears to exist almost solely to promote companies or organizations which fit this point of view, and which stand to profit from the publicity given by this article, thus violating advertising prohibitions. Your cause may be just, but Wikipedia is not a place to promote or denigrate any cause. It is an encyclopedia. This article must be deleted. Realkyhick 16:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Fine! Awa n hey a right gid feck tae yer sel then ya jumped up ole fert!-- Bank Buster 19:03, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
- I have no idea what that means, and that's probably a good thing. However, you'll note that I actually improved the article considerably, adding several sources. If it got The Beeb's attention, I'd say that's notable enough.
- By the way, are you Stephen Hone? If you are, good job! Don't know too many people with the cajones to do something like this. Realkyhick 00:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)