Talk:Mark Versallion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Speedy deletion nomination of Mark Versallion[edit]

A tag has been placed on Mark Versallion, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

non-notable self promotion

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Plingsby (talk) 10:52, 11 November 2013 (UTC) on the talk page of the author.

Is there anything particularly notable about this person?[edit]

This wiki article is blatant self-promotion. It should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Plingsby (talkcontribs) 10:43, 11 November 2013 (UTC)Plingsby (talk) 10:52, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I also notice that many of the references are to Mr Versallion's own website and one at least to his linkedin page. Completely out of order. Plingsby (talk) 12:29, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Only 8 of the 42 references are from Mr Versallion's web site; low for a living person biography. 81% of the references are from other neutral sources. He is an elected politician whose biography is expected to be in the public domain and furthermore is made available by various neutral organisations. There is only one LinkedIn reference and that serves as a source for verifying business career dates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PtolemyA (talkcontribs) 15:43, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

8 is 8 too many. If you wish this article to remain here, you are going to need to tidy it up a lot (and preferably have it written by a third party). I suggest that articles about minor politicians are inappropriate in here, unless they are particularly notable/noteworthy, which does not appear to be the case here.Plingsby (talk) 09:57, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Keep. I agree that the page needs cleaning up and that it has an air of peacockery about it. However, the point of WP:N is not that subjects need to deserve to be covered, but that information on them needs to be available from reliable sources. In this case, acceptable sources clearly are available. The page should be shorter. Moonraker (talk) 06:00, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
{Ping|Plingsby}} If you want the article removed as NN, then WP:AfD is the way to go. Links to the subject's own website are perfectly reasonable to support non-contentious facts. If you think that parts are peacocky, please identify them specifically. All the best: Rich Farmbrough12:55, 11 May 2014 (UTC).

I agree the page needed cleaning up and it appears to have been a lot by me and others. I can't see any references to primary sources now or that there is only one contributor with a close connection, as many have contributed. I'm relatively new to editing but shouldn't the 'Multiple Issues' header be removed now?--Merv96 (talk) 22:16, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

London Gazette is a primary source, but it is perfectly fine. All the best: Rich Farmbrough12:55, 11 May 2014 (UTC).

Hello, Merv96. You and Plingsby seem to be having an ongoing content dispute about this article. I see you have opened a discussion on the talk page, which is the right thing to do. I notice that your removals of the tags were done with no edit summary, which often makes deletions liable to be mistaken for vandalism. But I don't think Plingsby should have reinstated the tags a second time without opening a discussion with you. If the two of you cannot reach an agreement, the procedures in Dispute resolution are the way to go, rather than descending into an edit war. One point: the quality of the references would be much easier to determine if they were better formatted, according to the methods in referencing for beginners (I prefer to use the templates such as {{cite web}}, but that is not the only way to do it). --ColinFine (talk) 11:00, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Ahem -- the post just above, "signed" ColinFine (talk) 11:00, 11 May 2014 (UTC) (without any user or talk link, however), was actually made by Merv96 in this edit. What's going on? --Stfg (talk) 19:09, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
OK, I've found it. It's a copy of this post by ColinFine at the Tea House. @Merv96: please don't copy-paste people's postings out of context, without attribution, and in places they may not even have on their watch list. What you should have done is post a link to the Tea House section where Colin said that. --Stfg (talk) 19:34, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
re: "But I don't think Plingsby should have reinstated the tags a second time without opening a discussion with you." above: You'll note on Merv96's talk page that I did offer a "sensible approach" to this article that would not start an edit war. Mr. Versallion has not yet responded.Plingsby (talk) 14:37, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

WP:3O request declined[edit]

This discussion was referred to WP:3O, apparently on advice from the Tea House. Unfortunately the advice was incorrect, as WP:3O is for discussion where only two editors are involved, and so I'm forced to decline the request. As general advice, you may like to consider WP:POLITICIAN. The usual way to test disputed notability is via WP:AFD (having carried out WP:BEFORE). The number of {{Failed verification}} tags on this article is certainly a concern. --Stfg (talk) 11:24, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I've been through the article and formatted the references so we can evaluate them. I've also been checking the refs, and tagging or removing them as required. The result is ugly, and not the way I like to work - there are a lot of failed verification tags. I guess next we should look at removing those references that don't seem to support the text. - Bilby (talk) 16:02, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Yes, and fake references like FN6, which reads in full: <ref>Conservative Party (UK) leadership election, 2001</ref>. And any statements cited only to the failed verifications and fake references. --Stfg (talk) 17:24, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
If I couldn;t verify the ref, like that one and the Times reference, I left them alone to revisit. I agree - we need to kill those. - Bilby (talk) 22:09, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
I wouldn't call them fake, just yet. Simply broken. All the best: Rich Farmbrough16:06, 13 May 2014 (UTC).

I pulled "He worked for [[Michael Portillo]] at his London headquarters in the [[Conservative Party (UK) leadership election, 2001|Conservative leadership contest of 2001]].<ref>"[ Articles]", ''Michael Portillo: The Official Website''. Retrieved 12 May 2014.</ref>{{fv|date=May 2014}}<ref>Conservative Party (UK) leadership election, 2001</ref>" Doubtless it is true, but lack of source means we can't have it on am apparently controversial biography like this. When a suitable source becomes available it can be re-added. All the best: Rich Farmbrough16:16, 13 May 2014 (UTC).

Lots of controversy[edit]

Since I last "contributed" to this "article" a lot of people much more clever than I have inserted their "two-pennorth" into the discussion. I take all of your points on board (and actually, I shall probably not make any further contributions to this article). There have been two (and possibly three) sock puppet writers here. This is a VERY bad wiki entry. Mr Versallion may (just about) warrant a wiki entry. Wikipedia should be about information and not political self-aggrandisement. Anyway, I'll stick with the majority verdict.... Plingsby (talk) 20:52, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Mark Versallion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:30, 25 January 2016 (UTC)