Talk:Superfund Group

Fair use rationale for Image:Superfund.png
Image:Superfund.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 07:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

NPOV
this reads like PR. anyone who has some sources and some third party text about this please add them and reduce the blatant praise for this fund. --noclador (talk) 17:33, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion - Advertising
article has only two third party references, the bloomberg ref only talks about the companies advertising campaign and the reuters ref discusses the companies financial problems (which are not mentioned in the article). WookieInHeat (talk) 23:13, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * edit: removed speedy delete tag as efforts to improve the article seem to be underway. WookieInHeat (talk) 23:15, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I've removed the parts that are blatantly spammy and irrelevant (i.e., the fluff that looks like it was copied directly from the prospectus). It's probably not a G11 anymore, but might still be a A7. Notwithstanding, there are no reliable sources here and tagging it for deletion either via PROD or AfD might be justifiable. -- Kinu t /c  23:24, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV
I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:
 * This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
 * There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
 * It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
 * In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:42, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

== cleanup done = Removed unsubstantiated/false claims. Added citations. BruceThomson (talk) 10:07, 14 December 2022 (UTC)