Talk:Bradfords Group

AfD Discussion
A few AfD process thoughts:
 * Per WP:AFDFORMAT, "Please disclose whether you are the article's creator, a substantial or minor contributor, or if you otherwise have a vested interest in the article; WP:AVOIDCOI." I assume from your comment that you created or are a frequent contributor to the article.  You should disclose that, but also what if any association you have to the firm or the family. Interestingly, the majority of content and the argument to retain this thinly-veiled advertisement is Richard Poole, a professional marketeer (Richard Poole Associates) and one-time colleague of CEO Mark Eburne from their time together at Wolseley UK PLC.86.167.199.186 (talk) 20:31, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The same WP guideline states: "Unregistered or new users are welcome to contribute to the discussion, but their recommendations may be discounted if they seem to be made in bad faith (for example, if they misrepresent their reasons). Conversely, the opinions of logged in users whose accounts predate the article's AfD nomination may be given more weight when determining consensus." Your comments are likely to be given more credibility if you register.
 * Per WP:LINKSTOAVOID: "Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject, one should generally avoid providing external links to *** Websites of organizations mentioned in an article." So the article can have the one link to the firm's primary web site, but any other links (including those listed as references) qualify as advertising and should be removed.
 * Those references that remain should use a citation template. This and the previous recommendation should assist reviewers in determining whether or not sufficient authoritative references exist.--Rpclod (talk) 13:44, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I participated in the AFD discussion, and was of the impression that User:Richardrpoole had a conflict of interest, given his sole contribution to Wikipedia has been a) setting up a page about this business and b) mentioning it on other pages in Wikipedia - it did feel very marketing-y to me. He also ducked my question as to whether he did have a WP:COI - so, while User:86.167.199.186 quite likely has their own investment in this matter, LinkedIn does initially support what is being said. So I'm flagging the page for COI per his/her comments above. AdventurousMe (talk) 17:31, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I wasn't involved in the original AfD discussion as I only became aware of the artile after a link was added to Yeovil. I've done some cleanup to MOS issues and removed some of the more blatent POV & removed some content I couldn't find sources for (after a period with citation needed tags). Further ce and pruning would be useful. What specific parts do you feel have been affected by a potential COI?&mdash; Rod talk 17:41, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The existence of the article as a whole is a problem, Rod - I think it fails WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH, and wouldn't exist if a wiki-marketer hadn't put the page up and lied in the AfD. I think a great step would be to prune back so that you remove all unsourced statements - the original author appears to be on payroll and has done extensive research to find sources, so I wouldn't waste too much time looking - and then we see what's actually left.:AdventurousMe (talk) 08:56, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I've flagged unsourced statements, lost the timeline, pruned the advertorial and will remove unsourced statements after a decent interval. AdventurousMe (talk) 13:02, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Original Research
I am really uncomfortable with the reference to the first Bradford - a common English name - being supported only by a copy of the will. How do we know this had anything to do with the subsequent Bradfords? AdventurousMe (talk) 12:38, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

References & COI banners
Following the extensive "pruning" of this article from its original state I have removed the primary sources and COI banners. I've formatted the refs and removed those which don't support the claims made. I think there is (just about) enough reliable sources to show the company meets the General Notability Guideline or Notability (organizations and companies).&mdash; Rod talk 12:20, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for doing this Rod. I'm not sure there really are enough sources to meet GNG, but I'm not going to put it up for deletion. AdventurousMe (talk)