Talk:Westminster Digital
Add topic | This article was nominated for deletion on 17 August 2022. The result of the discussion was keep. |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Westminster Digital article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=small}
Feedback from New Page Review process
[edit]I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: Good start..
North8000 (talk) 02:17, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Possible conflict-of-interest editing
[edit]This page was created, and then edited, by T.corbett. The founder of Westminster Digital is Craig Dillon - full name Thomas Craig Corbett-Dillon (who appears to have very recently deleted his Twitter and LinkedIn accounts after some recent adverse media coverage). Dillon's own Wikipedia article has been deleted three times and salted (and a deletion review by T.corbett then declined).
I've left a message on T.corbett's talk page requesting clarification of their connection with Craig Dillon, but so far there's been no response: until it can be established whether there's been some CoI editing, I've put a hatnote on this page. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 13:00, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Dom Kaos: You've identified - with good reason - a potential CoI editor, but you have identified no issues with the article. What are your concerns about the content? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:26, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- The entire page appears to be promotional. The references appear to be almost exclusively interviews with Dillon: I'm intending to keep an eye on this page for a few weeks and, if it doesn't evolve into something more objective, nominate it for deletion under WP:NORG. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 15:31, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not seeing anything promotional, and the organisation seems to be notable. Interviews are an indiction of notability, and the sources which published those cited here are both independent and reliable. You'll be doing WP:BEFORE in advance of any such nomination, I trust? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:02, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- The entire page appears to be promotional. The references appear to be almost exclusively interviews with Dillon: I'm intending to keep an eye on this page for a few weeks and, if it doesn't evolve into something more objective, nominate it for deletion under WP:NORG. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 15:31, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
To be fair...
[edit]...while Btar4S5Ma's edits seem to be rather promotional in nature, I'm a bit iffy on having most of the paragraph about government funds be sourced to the Daily Mirror. It's not exactly a newspaper of record, to say the least. Pinging Discospinster, Wiiformii as they reverted Btar4S5Ma's edits. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 20:51, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- Fair enough, I feel as it is okay for now but it can definitely be improved as the Daily Mirror has no consensus on its reputability Wiiformii (talk) 22:10, 28 May 2024 (UTC)