 | This article was nominated for deletion on 27 November 2011 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. |
 | Reenactment Start‑class (inactive) | ||||||
| |||||||
Neutrality edit
I have to agree with the Neutrality flag, this does sound more like an advert than an encyclopedic entry. - Alan.
It might read like an advert but is accurate in every respect and hides no skeletons in the cupboard! I was as brief as I could be whilst getting it all in. This was deliberate as I did not want to be accused of bias. Other accurate contributions are welcome. Kim Siddorn 13:06, 25 June 2007 (UTC) - Kim
I've wikified it a bit and made it a little more encyclopedic. As such I felt that the flag was no longer needed and have removed it. Feel free to put it back on if you disagree. The Sanctuary Sparrow 17:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Cleanup edit
I've taken off the tag after having a go at cleaning it up a bit. Feel free to put it back on if you disagree. The Sanctuary Sparrow 15:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Advert edit
I do agree with the advert tag-the latest major edit by Kim Siddorn is still rather advert-y and really needs changing. The Sanctuary Sparrow (talk) 17:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Have attempted a slight cleanup to try and maintain something of a sense of neutrality, not removing the flag as I believe it could use a far more thorough 'going over' by someone with more of the primary source material to hand. Still reads obscenely like an advert- one has to wonder why it is posted on Wikipedia and not the group's own website. - 14 March 09 Zathamael
I still think this page is little more than a blatant advert for the group concerned. Their primary reference is their own webpages,
At the very least I think the Neutrality tag should go back, and possibly it should be tagged for deletion. Noble demetia (talk) 12:35, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
- Whilst I agree that there's a problem with the copy for this article, that's a matter for copyediting, not deletion. If things are broken we fix them, we don't delete them unless they cannot be fixed. Unless you doubt the group's notability, then I can see no call for deletion (and given that Kim was himself on TV yet again just this week ("Coast") in a Regia period persona, I can't see much risk of that). Andy Dingley (talk) 13:39, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
- Absolutely agree, ridiculous deletion nomination considering the society's notability - just need more links to reliable, independent sources - tv credits and contributions to history publications would be a good start. --Blaene (talk) 15:48, 1 December 2011 (UTC)