Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Dr John Pridgeon




 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was keep. @harej 00:48, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Dr John Pridgeon
Page is entirely promotional, a clear violation of WP:SOAPBOX. --Auntie E. (talk) 03:02, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Blank letter to editor, which seems to amount to a content fork. The top part seems OK to me. Gigs (talk) 15:26, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Within reasonable userspace rules - the author is not apparently a principal in the company, and the letter is released under WP rules, so there is no copyright issue.   Frankly, this sort of page is vastly preferable to having overt edit war in mainspace, and should be allowed.  The mainspace article appears, moreover, to suffer from "let's knock it down"itis -- especially the introduction of the Dubai stufy as "uncontrolled, unblinded" when the precis makes clear it dealt with 27 cases -- studies of that sort are always "uncontrolled and unblinded" .  Collect (talk) 11:46, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep In order to violate WP:SOAP, an editor must "passionately advocate their pet point of view," according to policy. The violation here can be fixed easily by removing the bottom half of the page. The top part is not advocacy on the level of WP:SOAP, nor is it unrelated to Wikipedia to a sufficient degree to merit deletion. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 21:39, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.