This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies 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.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London 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.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Marketing & Advertising, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Marketing 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.Marketing & AdvertisingWikipedia:WikiProject Marketing & AdvertisingTemplate:WikiProject Marketing & AdvertisingMarketing & Advertising articles
On 8 January 2015 this article looked like a proper Wikipedia article with sections and 3 cites, before it was changed by a single-article temporary editor who removed the cites and turned all the content into single sentence paragraphs. Since then it has become even worse, ugly with no sections and all extlinks (maybe old-style pseudo-cites) removed. I am tempted to go back to the 8 January 2015 version, even though it is so old, trim a bit and fold in anything new that looks good and I can find cites for. Does anyone object to this? An alternative would be to delete the article. Rwendland (talk) 15:07, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
