Talk:Richard Granger

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedy deleted because... --Midgley (talk) 20:47, 24 June 2011 (UTC) Still writing the second paragraph, actually. This chap set up a very large failed IT project. http://www.richardbacon.org.uk/speeches/110614_npfit_WH.html is well worth reading on it. Midgley (talk) 20:47, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay Midgley I will remove the deletion tag and see what you do with it - fair enough? Mark^Dask 21:28, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

It is Ready, aim fire! not Fire!, ready, aim. I suspect you may be leaving a trail of irritation, write an article on something that an article has not been written on yet, before you try to unrwrite anotehr one, is my advice. Midgley (talk) 21:34, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Now you are irritating me Midgley - I dont condemn just for the fun of it - but on the quality of the article - Mark^Dask 21:40, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Your judgement was casual, precipitate, and a review of your activities does not show, nor do two direct requests to you produce from you, anything you have contributed other than condemnation of other people's work. But by all means point to something good that falsifies that first impression, based only on clicking on your contributions tab. And your summary on removing your tag is patronising. Midgley (talk) 21:44, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedy deleted because... --Midgley (talk) 21:48, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

The editor who placed it is misusing the tag, and a review of his contributions indicates that he places this tag a lot, a review of his talk page will indicate that he pays little attention to the trail of them he has left. I think some counselling, or a RFC may be coming near. Midgley (talk) 21:48, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality

This article appears to have a very negative slant. As this Guardian article notes there was negative media coverage in relation to NHS Connecting for Health which he was manager of, but this article seems to be only presenting the negative. The tone needs to be edited in accordance with WP:BLPSTYLE.

I have requested input at the BLP noticeboard – WP:BLPN#Richard Granger. January (talk) 11:10, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Much insufficiently sourced and unsourced stuff removed. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:23, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

"notable for becoming the UK's highest paid civil servant while chief executive of its largest most expensive and most ambitious central government information technology project, the world's largest and most ambitious, and one which has not yet achieved much success. Considerable controversy surrounds aspects of the project. " is neitehr unsourced nor contentious actually. The assertion that he initially studied (for a degree in) COmputer Sciences, which is new, is unsourced, in particualr the Observer article that is the reference does not support that. It may be true, but I read it as failing a computer studies course, and having a year out, not as a documented switch from one degree to another. Hence the phrasing that was previously there. Midgley (talk) 12:28, 26 June 2011 (UTC).

In 2010 he was 42. I expect a birthday can be found. THe reference is the NHS conference proceedings in the ref list. Midgley (talk) 12:39, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

If you are objecting the NPfIT/CfH being described as the biggest IT failure ever, then you'll want to look at the NPfIT entry, a copied chunk of which you've just erased from this. The Public Accounts Ctee report - referenced - uses similar language. It is a notable failure. So was his salary, it caused note to be taken. Midgley (talk) 12:39, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Having been looking around at sources, while the fact that he has been Britian's highest paid civil servant has been mentioned quite a few times in the press, I don't think that's what he's actually notable for in particular so it shouldn't be the opening statement, and I question whether it should be in the lead although it merits mentioning in the body of the article. Overall, the original lead was not in the dispassionate tone required by WP:BLP. I think it should just explain what he does and the controversies etc can be covered in context within the body of the article. January (talk) 12:46, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

The Guardian article above gives his age as 42, but that was from 2007. January (talk) 12:52, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

As far as I can tell the report does not mention Granger by name. Richard Bacon MP does in his speech in Parliament, but I would question the use of these sources which I would consider primary. January (talk) 13:10, 26 June 2011 (UTC)