Talk:Chris Neal (screen composer)

Conflict of interest, original research, promotional editing.
Wikipedia is not a free PR platform. This promotion piece was largely supplied by the subject (original research) and edited into the article with a editor with a declared conflict of interest, they are working with the subject to get it looking like said subject wants it to be. See "Added a lot of history, provided to me by Chris himself. We are working on sorting out references and citations",  "Chris himself asked me to remove the table." This editor themselves removed the COI tag, along with the BLP sources tag, falsely claiming to have "fixed the issue". Another single purpose account has also removed them despite clearly have a connection and adding zero reliable sources. Seen77 claiming to be the subject writes "I am basically happy with the page - most of the information has been copied from my own website". No, that's not how Wikipedia works. It is not a vanity publishing site, it is not here to provide a platform for subjects to promote their preferred view of themselves. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:59, 13 December 2023 (UTC)


 * What would it take to have these tags removed? Do you want more citations leading to reliable information, or what? Your concerns make sense, but I'm not seeing a real attempt to find a solution here. Sticking big tags on pages is great and all - but what's the solution? JosephM1998 (talk) 05:28, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Please Delete
 

I would like to see this article deleted please. The article is more about the COI templates than it is about providing information. I am accused of using the platform for free PR, but this is not true, I have no such wish. The information contained in the article is available elsewhere on the web and the article is rated low on the Wikipedia scale of value, so I see no reason why it cannot simply be deleted. With thanks. Seen77 (talk) 05:28, 9 April 2024 (UTC)