Talk:Paul Staveley O'Duffy
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Tone[edit]
The article reads like a promotional piece written by a self-interested party, which it apparently is. While it's far from the worst such in Wikipedia, the article could be improved by removing the unsourced opinion and general puffery.Studerby (talk) 19:46, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Removing puffery is my life's work; I'll put this article right near the top of my list and try to sniff out the puffs and POV. Yes, it reads like a press release, but most of the claims should be easy to verify and reference. Much of it feels like a cut and paste from some existing promo, but a quick google didn't reveal any obvious plagiarism. Perhaps he or his management have had a go at creating a wiki article for him, particularly as there's no other wiki work from that particular IP address? To be fair, and assuming good faith, the revision replaced a fairly dismal four-line article and at least gives us somewhere to start. Little grape (talk) 00:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Started work on this; couldn't find anything that was an obvious fabrication, so I think it's just management puffery rather than a catalogue of fibs. Added some references, took out lots of opinions and gossippy stuff. Can't find anything supporting the 'run over by a car' stuff - can I suggest the editor who put that in comes back and gives us some supporting information? I'll pick this up again next week and do a bit more tidying. Little grape (talk) 15:51, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Done; removed templates. Again, would be helpful if original major contributor returned and helped with more cites, but at least all the music cites confirmed now.Little grape (talk) 14:04, 27 February 2009 (UTC)