User talk:Jiff78

Glassesdirect and Specsavers
Thanks for taking the time to update the articles. I'm not sure if you're trying to indicate that they both still appear to be advertisments, or if you are pointing out the fact that Specsavers was not tagged as such. As they are currently written, I would suggest that both articles be placed in Articles for Deletion to allow debate on whether these articles should be kept. In my opinion, the articles don't seem to make any significant assertions of notability, and seem to exist only to direct users to them. --Bugwit grunt / scribbles 22:42, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The Wikipedia policies regarding spam/advertisement are here. As with any guideline, there are going to be gaps and ambiguities that are open for interpretation.  If you feel that the other articles that you have mentioned go against these (or other) policies, you are welcome to edit these articles to bring them in line, propose their deletion, etc.  I would caution you, however, to be careful of the words used if you do decide to edit.  For example, I rolled back some of the edits you had made to Specsavers, where you used the phrase "...such as Glasses Direct and Specs4less, who have reduced costs for consumers by up to 80%".  Statements like this are pretty clear examples of going against WP:NPOV.  I would also caution you to be very careful with proposing the deletion of these other articles.  You are well within your rights to do so, but I would ask that you take a look at WP:POINT before considering that option.  Hope this helps. --Bugwit grunt / scribbles 23:47, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Note Sliggy has rewritten the article from scratch in such a way as to meet the criteria set forth in policies. I have changed my vote to keep in response to these edits. --Bugwit grunt / scribbles 23:53, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

AfD
Thanks for thanking me in public, appreciated. You probably know of them already, but it can be useful to have a look at the guidelines and policies, particularly the Big Three: the need for a neutral point of view, verifiable sources and no original research, they underpin and guide things. Cheers, Sliggy 00:51, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your note. By the way, as a quick piece of advice - I'd go back and remove the bold typeface where you have emphasised delete. This emphasis is used to clearly summarise a Wikipedian's opinion in an AfD discussion, and you expressed yours in the retain (I presume...!). A harassed or time-pressed administrator might miss that you have inadvertently expressed your summary opinion twice. Cheers, Sliggy 01:24, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Glassesdirect
A tag has been placed on Glassesdirect requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for web content. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. magnius (talk) 01:33, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of Glasses Direct for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Glasses Direct is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Glasses Direct until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Amit (talk) 19:21, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Glasses Direct


Do not create articles about living people that are entirely negative in tone and not sourced. Wikipedia has a policy of verifiability and any negative information we use must be reliably sourced, and our articles must be balanced. Negative, unreferenced biographies of living people are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Under section G10 of the criteria for speedy deletion, the page has been nominated for deletion. Users who continue to create or repost such pages and images in violation of our biographies of living persons policy may be blocked from editing.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.  DGG ( talk ) 21:30, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Glasses Direct


A tag has been placed on Glasses Direct, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator.  DGG ( talk ) 21:33, 3 December 2015 (UTC)