Talk:Colin Broderick

This article was nominated for deletion on 17 September 2018. The result of the discussion was keep.

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.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Colin Broderick. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check

}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:03, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Revamped entire article

This article was in lousy shape when I found it. It was full of errors in spelling, punctuation, and grammar, and it came across as a promotional brochure. Plus the sources were of little value and not cited correctly. So, I spent almost all day yesterday working on it and I think I got it to an acceptable state. It is as neutral and encyclopedic in tone as I could make it. Now someone has come along and nominated it to be deleted because they don't think the subject of the article is notable enough somehow. I don't quite understand that reasoning, so if you want to add your opinion, please click on the link at top of the article to do so. nycdi (talk) 04:29, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]