Talk:Nick Jeffery
Appearance
This article was nominated for deletion on July 12 2012. The result of the discussion was delete. |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Page reopen?
[edit]Hi, @David Gerard
I was reading about Verizon’s acquisition of Frontier, and saw that Nick Jeffery was dropped for poor sourcing. But he's since been in a handful of articles, linked below, which seem to be substantial. Could you help me move the page back to Draft space so that I could work on this? Just trying this process out to see if this is how it works, many thanks.
https://www.hartfordbusiness.com/article/new-ceo-named-for-frontier-communications-0
Yachtahead (talk) 19:36, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not sure those would be up to standard to have a standalone BLP, per WP:GNG and WP:BIO - a local boosterist press interview, a reprinted press release and a news story that just has the fact of him coming in and includes a pile of what looks like press release content. There really still isn't much to say about him except "Vodafone guy" - David Gerard (talk) 07:21, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
- but I mean sure, you could put something together and run it through WP:AFC - David Gerard (talk) 07:22, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks. Understood on the notability. Your recommendation also leads to part of my question, out of curiosity, because he already has this redirect, why would we do AFC? Because we're not creating a new article, wouldn't we work from this? Many thanks. Yachtahead (talk) 15:15, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
- Because it was previously AFDed. That was a while ago, of course. But I think that's pretty skimpy sourcing and may just get redirected again - David Gerard (talk) 17:10, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks. Understood on the notability. Your recommendation also leads to part of my question, out of curiosity, because he already has this redirect, why would we do AFC? Because we're not creating a new article, wouldn't we work from this? Many thanks. Yachtahead (talk) 15:15, 4 October 2024 (UTC)