Talk:Tom Allason

Untitled

I do not believe this article should be deleted as i fail to see how it contravenes Wikipedia's policy... In terms of notability the article references a number of press articles about the subject and the company he founded. these references include mainstream UK titles such as The Economist, The Financial Times & The Times. The subject founded a well known internet business and is both notable and active within the UK's entrepreneur community, a google search reinforces this. If the problem relates to formatting, i would appreciate your assistance in bringing this article into an acceptable form.

References

Hey, I removed the CSD as some google searches show that ecourier is a pretty notable company. However, you need to work on the references in the article. They're not showing correctly. Check out this link for a quick tutorial: WP:Referencing for beginners . --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 17:47, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Peacockery etc

The article had massive issues of peacockery and author COI - if indeed not an autobiography. I edited it to a more NPOV form, explaining each revision in an edit summary (see this diff: [[1]]). Rather than an IP address with clear COI issues - see this: [[2]] - simply reverting as here [[3]] (without even an edit summary), could I please suggest debating any perceived issues here first. Springnuts (talk) 20:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

NPOV

It seems clear that someone very closely related (or Tom Allason himself) has been editing this article. On the talk page for the editor, User talk:78.105.5.19 he clearly states, "My edits to it are not autobiographic although i do know the subject and his company well." So clearly NPOV would be in question if someone very closely tied to this individual and his company is making these edits. The editor also states he started his edits after user Springnuts removed a big chunk of the article (reasons for are clearly explained in his edit summaries). It is entirely possible that 78.105.5.19 is Randomresearch74 (the original creator of the article) and both are Tom Allason or someone with very close ties. Raeky (talk) 02:56, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

This article was likely created and is being edited (to the point of war editing) by likely the same person the article is about, see NPOV section on talk page, also see User talk:78.105.5.19 for futher conversation. —Raeky (via posting script) 13:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I am not convinced that starting a courier company makes Tom Allason sufficiently notable to have a WP article on him. The reference section is bigger than the biography, that says a lot to me. Whether the edits are NPOV or not seems irrelevant. I think the article should be deleted. Cottonshirt (talk) 16:01, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I would tend to agree with deleting the article, it has been deleted before actually. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 18:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I wavered about either deletion or redirect to Ecourier. In the end I left the article - after pruning the chaff (do you prune chaff?) because I felt that the recognition by Growing Business and the BT Business Club. just established Notability, downhill, on a good day and with a following wind. But the awards are so linked to the company (which is notable, but its article is having its own issues) that a redirect might be the best way ahead. Springnuts (talk) 00:21, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to suggest deletion or redirect to Ecourier, and Ecourier will need some work to make it NPOV as well (same editors puffing it up.) — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 22:12, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Merge to Ecourier would be my suggestion too. — Matt Crypto 22:47, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I hope it is not premature to say that there is a general consensus to delete the content here and merge what is useful into Ecourier. I will redirect from here. Not too bold I hope. Springnuts (talk) 23:06, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

It's been barely over 24 hours since the RfC was opened, but historically I think only one editor would be against the redirect whereas several others expressed their opinion for a redirect here (including admins). I think consensus is achieved at this point. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 03:12, 31 January 2009 (UTC)