Talk:Byline Times
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Bias?
[edit]I don't know about this publication in detail, but the articles appear possibly to have a strong political bias and, potentially, contain material that borders on conspiracy theory. Perhaps someone with more understanding of such things might be able to investigate further. 86.142.227.60 (talk) 06:18, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
- Could you give some indication of content that, in your opinion, "borders on conspiracy theory". CatNip48 (talk) 20:15, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
Cheap advertising
[edit]A Wikipedia marketing article. 86.190.224.83 (talk) 08:37, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
- If you think that neutrality is not being followed, please use this Talk page to propose specific changes that should be made to the article. MartinPoulter (talk) 16:25, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
- I think perhaps that in Wikipedia terms, the IP’s view is that there is nothing notable about this publication, so the existence of the article constitutes free advertising. Perhaps the article should be deleted? Sweet6970 (talk) 11:52, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
- If you seriously think that, then initiate a deletion discussion and see how that goes. MartinPoulter (talk) 20:44, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
- I have never participated in a deletion discussion, let alone initiated one. I get the impression that you think such a discussion would end in a decision to keep. If my guess is correct, please explain to me why you think this article is worth keeping – this might save a lot of time and trouble. Sweet6970 (talk) 21:57, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
- I have no crystal ball for the outcomes of hypothetical futures so my suggestion above was sincere. It seems to me that the General notability guideline is met: significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article. But if this really is debated, then the proper way forward is a community discussion rather than my opinion. MartinPoulter (talk) 15:30, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you for your response. I had assumed that your suggestion was sincere. I am considering whether I should start a deletion discussion – but first I will have to research how these things work. Sweet6970 (talk) 15:50, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
- I have no crystal ball for the outcomes of hypothetical futures so my suggestion above was sincere. It seems to me that the General notability guideline is met: significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article. But if this really is debated, then the proper way forward is a community discussion rather than my opinion. MartinPoulter (talk) 15:30, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
- I have never participated in a deletion discussion, let alone initiated one. I get the impression that you think such a discussion would end in a decision to keep. If my guess is correct, please explain to me why you think this article is worth keeping – this might save a lot of time and trouble. Sweet6970 (talk) 21:57, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
- If you seriously think that, then initiate a deletion discussion and see how that goes. MartinPoulter (talk) 20:44, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
- I think perhaps that in Wikipedia terms, the IP’s view is that there is nothing notable about this publication, so the existence of the article constitutes free advertising. Perhaps the article should be deleted? Sweet6970 (talk) 11:52, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
Slight edit
[edit]I deleted "cleared Wootton of any wrongdoing and" from the part referencing; "Dan Wootton: Metropolitan Police taking no further action against broadcaster". BBC News. 21 February 2024. Retrieved 21 February 2024. As the BBC report says that Dan Wooton said " that he had been "completely cleared".". The Police merely said "no further action" which is a very different thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.248.130.117 (talk) 09:55, 11 April 2024 (UTC)