Revision as of 19:29, 12 October 2019 editOhnoitsjamie (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Administrators261,339 edits comments← Previous edit |
Revision as of 19:35, 12 October 2019 edit undoBigDwiki (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users25,474 edits →Comments on October 2019 editing dispute: reNext edit → |
Line 5: |
Line 5: |
|
* Regarding this edit; user review sites such as Travelocity do not meet ] guidelines. |
|
* Regarding this edit; user review sites such as Travelocity do not meet ] guidelines. |
|
* Regarding ; a stairwell fire that involved no injuries or serious damage is not notable, and doesn't merit inclusion in the article per ]; furthermore, the for the statement that the building contained "unreliable fire systems" prior to the fire actually describes ''remedies'' taken by the new building management upon taking ownership of the building in 2017; connecting it to the fire is a clear violation of ]. <b>] ]</b> 19:29, 12 October 2019 (UTC) |
|
* Regarding ; a stairwell fire that involved no injuries or serious damage is not notable, and doesn't merit inclusion in the article per ]; furthermore, the for the statement that the building contained "unreliable fire systems" prior to the fire actually describes ''remedies'' taken by the new building management upon taking ownership of the building in 2017; connecting it to the fire is a clear violation of ]. <b>] ]</b> 19:29, 12 October 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
::I have re-added the material that complies with ] and ] without the fire material. I believe that a building evacuation (regardless of the fire status) which made local news is indeed credible and belonging in the article. ] (]) 19:35, 12 October 2019 (UTC) |