Talk:Death of Max Spiers

This article was nominated for deletion on 25 February 2017. The result of the discussion was keep.

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles

Death Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Alternative views Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Skepticism Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Poland Low‑importance

	Poland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Poland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Poland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PolandWikipedia:WikiProject PolandTemplate:WikiProject PolandPoland articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United Kingdom Low‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Contesting the speedy

I contest it, as there's enough RS to meet GNG, so better to let this be sorted at AfD. Widefox; talk 09:39, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

For why they are primary and/or unreliable for this see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Max Spiers. Widefox; talk 10:55, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AfD

User:J947 (or anyone else): Why is the content of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Max Spiers struck through? (J947 closed this, in struck-through form.)

I'm inclined to remove the striking-through, but see an instruction not to tamper with a closed AfD in any way. More.coffy (talk) 09:11, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It looked to me like it was struck-out because it was withdrawn from the editor who proposed it? TeeVeeed (talk) 14:35, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It was a while ago now so I don't know the reason. Just know it wasn't me. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 06:19, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A few minutes ago I went ahead and tampered, adding one "close-strikethrough" tag. What two people wanted struck through is still struck through but the rest is not. I don't think that anyone could reasonably object to my edit, though I'll admit that it's not what one is normally supposed to do. More.coffy (talk) 06:29, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't do that again. "No further edits should be made to this page." is pretty clear isn't it?TeeVeeed (talk) 16:50, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is clear. What was also clear to me was that (1) markup problems made the page hard to read; (2) what the respective writers had intended to be struck out was very clear; (3) fixing the page to read as intended would require an extremely minor and simple edit; (4) explaining this to anybody else to ask for permission would take more of my time than just fixing it and of course would use up that other person's time. Additionally, Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Editing_others'_comments, though not specifically about either AFDs or closed discussions, tells people two things that seem relevant here. First: "Striking text constitutes a change in meaning, and should only be done by the user who wrote it or someone acting at their explicit request"; the striker-out of their own text also struck out others' text, a problem that my edit fixed. Secondly: "Some examples of appropriately editing others' comments" include "Fixing format errors that render material difficult to read"; again, just what I did. More.coffy (talk) 06:05, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Investigation

The section "Investigation" contains one longish paragraph that says what was and wasn't expected to happen, and then a very short paragraph that says what later did happen. It seems to me that no matter how well intended the former paragraph was when it was written, the latter makes it entirely superfluous. Any objection if I were to delete it? More.coffy (talk) 09:11, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Envelop involving Max Spears ?

I have found an envelope in a skip where people have fly tipped. The envelope involves the name Max spears. On the other side of the envelope it says “they whoever those fuckers are recongnised this and cowardly killed him.” and i was wondering if it could be of any help? 2A00:23C7:B821:D201:ADC3:A955:F887:D863 (talk) 12:19, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Very much doubt it. KJP1 (talk) 10:13, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]