Talk:Foxtons

Hang on
I don't think that this qualifies as an article consisting solely of links. Could it be substituted with a Prod if there is still the issue outstanding, as this article could easily be improved.

JASpencer (talk) 20:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Doesn't look like a speedy to me, as long as it gets expanded fairly quickly.--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 20:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * There was an older article here that I did not realise had been deleted. An administrator should look at merging histories. Catchpole (talk) 20:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * That would be good. JASpencer (talk) 20:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I no longer support the deletion of this article (I'm the one who added the speedy) as it now actually has substance. Thanks for being one of the few to follow proper hangon procedure on the matter.--  Oni Ookami Alfador Talk 21:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

A very biast view i think, this should be a proper page like any other large company would have ie. cocacola ect. Can this not be changed to be a bit more objective and informative? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.20.91 (talk) 20:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

18 April 2008
We (Foxtons) have updated the page about Foxtons as it had little information about the company and its history (in comparison to other companies' pages). If these changes are acceptable we will add further information in the future. We have tried to remain unbiased and have kept the original content on the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Foxtons (talk • contribs) 15:54, 18 April 2008

Bias?
I note that Foxtons say they have edited their own page. Considering the type of company that Foxtons are, is this fair? If you don't know what I'm talking about, please google 'Foxtons complaints'. Thinkingdust (talk) 02:50, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Some of the stuff was puffery and they demoted some of their criticisms, but that's been put right and they don't seem to have edited for a bit. They did put some useful info, which has been retained. JASpencer (talk) 19:11, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Same thing again - Foxtons (or a user I assume is acting on their behalf) edited the article simply to remove coverage of criticism of them. I've reverted these edits. If Foxtons want to add relevant, unbiased information about their company that gives balance, then fine, but simply removing widely reported controversy about the company is not on. Thulcandran (talk) 08:56, 26 June 2012 (UTC)