Talk:Michael Lord-Castle

Untitled
This is an outrageous advert for this person, johnnybriggs (talk) 21:24, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 one external links on Michael Lord-Castle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.asa.org.uk/ASA-action/Adjudications/2009/4/The-Insolvency-Advisory-Service-LLP/TF_ADJ_46166.aspx
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://blogs.mirror.co.uk/investigations/2009/05/lord-castle-needs-to-get-fax-s.html
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.cambridgenetwork.co.uk/news/article/default.aspx?objid=23971

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 11:21, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Michael Lord-Castle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150722222545/http://www.accessmylibrary.com/article-1G1-154491617/global-protection-committee-man.html to http://www.accessmylibrary.com/article-1G1-154491617/global-protection-committee-man.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 02:43, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Insolvency Advice Service
I notice there has been a slow burning edit war between you and someone, presumably either Lord-Castle or a representative of him, that is claiming the material is "libellous". The two sources are a Wayback machine link to an Advertising Standards Agency report on the firm which makes no mention of Lord-Castle (and to therefore attribute it to him is original research), and a citation to the Daily Mirror, widely considered to be a tabloid newspaper and unsuitable to use for BLPs. Per WP:BLPSOURCES, I have to therefore side with the IP's view and err on the side of removal. Please do not re-add the material without discussion as edit-warring against BLP can result in sanctions. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  14:34, 6 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I can absolutely see the point, and other previous material has been removed so as not to fall foul of BLP policies. I took the view that the combination of the ASA adjudication and the newspaper story referencing it was sufficient, but that depends on your view of the second of those sources.  I took the view that the journalists involved in the particular story seem reputable in that respect, and his notability is largely to do with that company.  I did try to ensure that i wasn't getting in to WP:SYNTH territory by separating the fact that he started the company (separately sourced), with the fact that the company was held to be misleading by the ASA, although this assertion is made by the newspaper so is sourced.

My concern is over 'wikiwashing' of articles like this by the interested party or their representative. Would you feel it more acceptable to use some of this with caveats such as 'reported in the Daily Mirror as having...'? OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 16:00, 6 June 2016 (UTC)


 * The easy bit is removing the content and crying BLP, the hard bit is then working out what to do next. My opinions on what should happen are generally that you should find an alternative source for whatever the Mirror cites - anything that really is genuinely encyclopaedic in importance will be mentioned in all the nationals, so you ought to be able to cherry pick from any of the Guardian, Independent, Times or Telegraph. The second is if a person really isn't that notable in the grand scheme of things, but kicks up a stink about some of the article, then it might be worth deleting the whole lot on the grounds that having no article is less disruptive than a fight over one. eg: see the AfD history at Talk:Charlene McMann. Many editors don't agree with that philosophy though.
 * For the ASA adjudication, the obvious thing I would do is start an article on the Insolvency Advice Service, and possibly redirecting this article there, but a quick look for news sources doesn't reveal much outside of what we already have, plus Lord-Castle being namechecked in this BBC source. So I can't be sure it will survive a deletion debate.
 * For this article, there is still too much coverage in reliable sources, so I think I would lean towards "keep" in an AfD. Again, there's not much "meat" in sources online, which you would expect for somebody being in the public eye, but I do know that con-artists do as much as possible to stay away from news coverage wherever they can, so that's expected. I'm reminded of a scene in Hustle where the police cannot charge gang leader Michael Stone as they have no proof he's done anything, even though the audience have watched him clearly commit grand theft and get away with it.
 * I think for now I'd be tempted to leave things be; the article still exists and people can easily search the web to see what else he's got up to. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  16:32, 6 June 2016 (UTC)