The result was Speedy keep per snow. The nom's concerns have now been addressed and fixed. Great work. Syn ergy 21:37, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
This article has very few informations. This article is unsourced. This article is almost only promotional. This article is almost copied from the frontpage on the company's own website Broadwood & Sons. Fanoftheworld ( talk) 20:13, 4 May 2009 (UTC) reply
The article:
"Broadwood and Sons is the oldest piano company in the world, named after its founder John Broadwood. The instruments have been played by musicians including Mozart, Haydn, Dussek, Beethoven, Chopin and Liszt. The company holds the Royal Warrant as manufacturer of pianos to Queen Elizabeth II.".
The frontpage on the company's own website (
http://www.uk-piano.org/broadwood):
"John Broadwood & Sons is the oldest and one of the most prestigious piano companies in the world. The instruments have been enjoyed by such famous people as Mozart, Haydn, Chopin, Beethoven and Liszt. The company holds the Royal Warrant as manufacturer of pianos to Queen Elizabeth II.".
It looks suspicious that no one has commented the copyright problem, which in general is a very critical problem.
If the article should stay, there should be much more encyclopedical stuff than just an article of only promotional stuff. Articles, which only concist of promotional stuff should be deleted because there is no reason for keeping these articles. On the contrary, articles, which just have some few claims from few users about being "overly promotional" in few places compared with the articles size, should of course stay.
Some small changes in this article is not enough to make it encyclopedical. There has to be made very big changes to make it Wikipedia worth. Fanoftheworld ( talk) 22:29, 4 May 2009 (UTC) reply
- "Fanoftheworld, you should have given Alex a chance to improve the article after your Prod was removed, and at least discussed it on the talk page before nominating." = Wrong, according to
Alexrexpvt's comment on my talk page:
"I have removed the {{
prod}} tag from
Broadwood and Sons, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{
prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks!
Alexrexpvt (
talk) 18:11, 4 May 2009 (UTC)".
reply
According to "Instead, feel free to list it at
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion." it is correct what I have done.
And if the article wasn't nominated for deletion, I don't think the article would have been improved at all, and the very seriously copyright violation would still have been here (which it already had been for years!!!). I am sure that
Alexrexpvt has improved the article, only because of the nomination for deletion.
- "Deletion is not intended for removing poor pages about notable subjects; the oldest piano company is obviously notable." = Yes, but if the whole article is all stolen from the company's own website, the article should of course be deleted. No good reasons for keeping stolen articles no matter how notable the subjects are.
- "Copyright violation is certainly a problem (though perhaps fair use could be argued with such a short excerpt), but when faced with it you should clean it up using reliable sources." = Wrong. When users faces a copyright violation he/she can nominate it for deletion. The user does not need to look for third-party sources and re-write the article to solve the very seriously copyright problem. To make a nomination for deletion is all correct - especially in this case.
Fanoftheworld (
talk) 13:51, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
reply
The result was Speedy keep per snow. The nom's concerns have now been addressed and fixed. Great work. Syn ergy 21:37, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
This article has very few informations. This article is unsourced. This article is almost only promotional. This article is almost copied from the frontpage on the company's own website Broadwood & Sons. Fanoftheworld ( talk) 20:13, 4 May 2009 (UTC) reply
The article:
"Broadwood and Sons is the oldest piano company in the world, named after its founder John Broadwood. The instruments have been played by musicians including Mozart, Haydn, Dussek, Beethoven, Chopin and Liszt. The company holds the Royal Warrant as manufacturer of pianos to Queen Elizabeth II.".
The frontpage on the company's own website (
http://www.uk-piano.org/broadwood):
"John Broadwood & Sons is the oldest and one of the most prestigious piano companies in the world. The instruments have been enjoyed by such famous people as Mozart, Haydn, Chopin, Beethoven and Liszt. The company holds the Royal Warrant as manufacturer of pianos to Queen Elizabeth II.".
It looks suspicious that no one has commented the copyright problem, which in general is a very critical problem.
If the article should stay, there should be much more encyclopedical stuff than just an article of only promotional stuff. Articles, which only concist of promotional stuff should be deleted because there is no reason for keeping these articles. On the contrary, articles, which just have some few claims from few users about being "overly promotional" in few places compared with the articles size, should of course stay.
Some small changes in this article is not enough to make it encyclopedical. There has to be made very big changes to make it Wikipedia worth. Fanoftheworld ( talk) 22:29, 4 May 2009 (UTC) reply
- "Fanoftheworld, you should have given Alex a chance to improve the article after your Prod was removed, and at least discussed it on the talk page before nominating." = Wrong, according to
Alexrexpvt's comment on my talk page:
"I have removed the {{
prod}} tag from
Broadwood and Sons, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{
prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks!
Alexrexpvt (
talk) 18:11, 4 May 2009 (UTC)".
reply
According to "Instead, feel free to list it at
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion." it is correct what I have done.
And if the article wasn't nominated for deletion, I don't think the article would have been improved at all, and the very seriously copyright violation would still have been here (which it already had been for years!!!). I am sure that
Alexrexpvt has improved the article, only because of the nomination for deletion.
- "Deletion is not intended for removing poor pages about notable subjects; the oldest piano company is obviously notable." = Yes, but if the whole article is all stolen from the company's own website, the article should of course be deleted. No good reasons for keeping stolen articles no matter how notable the subjects are.
- "Copyright violation is certainly a problem (though perhaps fair use could be argued with such a short excerpt), but when faced with it you should clean it up using reliable sources." = Wrong. When users faces a copyright violation he/she can nominate it for deletion. The user does not need to look for third-party sources and re-write the article to solve the very seriously copyright problem. To make a nomination for deletion is all correct - especially in this case.
Fanoftheworld (
talk) 13:51, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
reply