Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gregory Lauder-Frost (fourth nomination)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --bainer (talk) 01:26, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gregory Lauder-Frost

After a period of intense brouhaha including legal threats, forum shopping, WP:OFFICE, indefinite blockings and all the other accoutrements of low drama Wikipedia style, we finally have cautious agreement from the Foundation to write a neutral biography on this minor figure in British right-wing politics.

I emphasis that the subject has never been an MP, or even a candidate, not even stood for a local council. He is a party activist of very questionable importance outside of a small circle, and I say this not to run him down but out of sheer bewliderment for the amount of trouble this article has caused.

The latest act in this little play, though, is a message to User:Edchilvers stating that the subject is suffering from a very serious illness. Given that the neutral statement of certain facts (check the talk page archive) apparently causes the subject great distress, and taking the information and request at face value, it would seem to be decently respectful to delete the article. Frankly I don't think this person's notability is worth the effort expended and I am all for just deleting it anyway, but impassioned defence earlier in its life makes this a controversial move.

So: the matter of principle having been settled (yes we should paint the picture warts and all), should the matter of ordinary human decency now come into play here? My immediate reaction is that it should, and Ed Chilvers (who God knows has no reason to love Lauder-Frost) also seems persuaded. Others disagree, unsurprisingly given past deceit from friends of the subject, but Ed is very persuasive in respect of the credibility of the communicaiton he has received, so between User:Edchilvers, User:William Pietri and myself we have decided to bring this to the community. Guy 22:46, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Delete. If the information is correct and it seems to be so, then it will be best if the article is taken down. Endomorph

• Comment. I am neutral on this issue, but I hope that someone will keep a copy of the article so that it can be restored when Gregory Lauder-Frost dies. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 23:59, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

• History will not be purged I think. Guy 00:32, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. The amount of effort necessary to spend maintaining a decent article on this extremely run-of-the-mill political figure is simply a waste of time. The highest claim to notability is "referred to... by The Independent as a leading right-wing political extremist". Being a "leading right-wing political extremist" is the equivalent of being the highest beetle on the dung heap. It may be a significant achievement within your circle, but in the overall scope of things it's an extremely limited claim to notability. The actual reason why this article has managed to survive AfDs is the scandal element. Wikipedia is not a local gossip rag. We do not write about scandals on the basis that someone underwent an "interesting" scandal - we maintain articles on significant, notable figures, and if said notable figures underwent verifiable scandals, we report them. GLF is not notable, by any definition other than "omg, there was a flamewar on Wikipedia so this must be a significant scandal". No it isn't. The man on the Clapham omnibus would not know this man from a hole in the ground. Remember when Jimbo told us to go for quality over quantity? That means taking the axe to articles that aren't worth the time and effort. I suggest that those who have spent so much effort on this article turn their attentions to Jonathan Aitken, an infinitely more significant scandal-stricken personality, whose article is currently about the same size and all but unsourced to boot. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 00:49, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. I broadly agree with both Guy and Sam Blanning's analyses of this article in terms of notability. I also agree with the more general principle that it's not worth having an article, when the effort required in maintaining the article to an acceptable standard is far greater than the contribution the article makes to human knowledge. --bainer (talk) 01:54, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. As a central figure in the histories of several notable and influential conservative groups - which, based on the information I've now read, helped shape the direction of the modern Conservative party, often by inadvertently pushing the party away from their extremism- Gregory Lauder-Frost has attained sufficient notability as well as notoriety to warrant an article on Wikipedia. The personal life section is a little creepy-stalkerish, but on the whole it gives a good perspective on his life and the impact he had on British politics. To an extent, I'm also arguing utility - the Gregory Lauder-Frost article spurred me into reading up about the history of the Conservatives/Tories. A hell of a lot of work has gone into getting the page into good condition, and it's one of the articles (along with the Daniel Brandt article) that I can point to proudly and say "This is the project I spend my rare free time on. This project covers important figures, warts and all, with good sourcing and without allowing a whitewash of uncomfortable truths, and helps connect them to other events, places, and people of note." I'm damned proud of the people who put blood, sweat, and tears into this article, defending it against POV-pushers, anonymous vandals, and the addition of unsourced information. Captainktainer * Talk 02:25, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment When did WP ever bend to the requests of the article's subjects? This isn't an absolute case like wtih Justin Berry or Jack Thompson when the foundation had to get involved. WP is notoroious for not following subject's wishes - Angela Beesley, Daniel Brandt, Emmalina, and some French soccer player (the name escapes me; he may not even be French) have all requested their articles to be deleted, but none of their wishes were granted. The French soccer player's AFD dissolved into an orgy of "Keep" votes because the subject had requested deletion. Daniel brandt, well, he's the joke now, everybody votes keep. Why should we act any differently because this subject happens to be ill? Hbdragon88 03:46, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

• Note that this nomination is not at the request of anyone. The main arguments are that Lauder-Frost is not sufficiently notable enough to warrant a biography in Wikipedia, and that disputes about the article's content have caused substantial problems in the past; the fact that the subject is ill is merely icing on the cake, it's an extra reason to delete the article. --bainer (talk) 04:51, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Neither "pity" -- nor its flip side, conveniently timed emotional manipulation -- are grounds for a deletion. If the subject qualifies for an article, the subject qualifies for an article. --Calton | Talk 07:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. The subject was never worthy of an article in the first place. Fabianist 11:49, 22 September 2006 (UTC) (first edit by this account)
• Keep, a figure on the margins of UK politics, but this has never stopped us yet. Charles Matthews 11:49, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete On balance, I think this figure is too minor. Its okay to have articles on the these Little Britisher groups themselves but not on people who have merely held several senior positions in them. Also, I don't think the claims about illness should have been a consideration at all. Bwithh 12:04, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete; not per concerns of illness neither per legal threats—but Sam Blanning said it well. I skimmed over the talk page archive and, like Sam, concluded that it's not worth the effort keeping an article about a marginally notable person against such brouhaha. If the socks would deem the deletion a victory, let it be so; we shouldn't aim for "winning" for the sake of winning, and JzG and W. Pietri have more useful things to do than fighting it; (I mean this as endorsement of their contributions, not as a criticism of their attitude and contributions to this article). Duja 12:44, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I tend to think he's not notable and would support deletion, but only if someone makes a concerted effort to remove the dozens of references to Lauder-Frost's various letters to the editor, club positions, and dinners, all of which appear to have been salted on numerous pages across Wikipedia. (My favorite is his inclusion on the list of notable anti-communists, right after Reagan and Thatcher and right before Scoop Jackson). TheronJ 13:39, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

• I'm also a little uncomfortable as a result of the history of the GLF page -- this started out as a vanity page, survived three deletion requests, with the last one resulting in an unambiguous and near-unanimous keep as notable, and has been subject to massive sockpuppetry and legal threat. I tend to agree that GLF isn't notable, but the previous conduct of many of GLF's partisans still sets off alarm bells at this point. TheronJ 13:46, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Delete. I've only recently skimmed through all this controversy, but I can't understand why this article about a total nonentity who has achieved nothing worthwhile whatsoever was not trashed long ago.James Loughton 14:53, 22 September 2006 (UTC).

A disgraceful comment by at least another "total nonentity" who arrived for the 1st time on Wiki on the 5th August. Another good example of Wikipedia "balance" and "good faith".213.122.13.20 16:51, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete: This article will always be subject to attack from The Left, just as it has been up until now. Screams of "neutrality" and "balance" are simply feeble excuses used to demonise what was once a very full biography of the Political Secretary of Britain's most well-known, ever, Tory pressure-group, simply because the attackers were opposed to their philosophies. I have no doubt that once this article is ditched the same people will simply move on somewhere else for the same purposes. If anything this whole charade has exposed Wikipedia not as a proper encylcopaedia, or one which respected the sensitivites of living people, but as a sneering smearing vehicle for The Left.213.122.13.20 16:51, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
• I'm going to have to vote keep. I'm not unsympathetic to the legitimate medical concerns of a Wikipedia subject, but (i) I've seen no evidence that this isn't just another charade on the part of GLF and his associates, and (ii) I'm concerned about setting a bad precedent for any similar controversies in the future. GLF was once a leading figure in the Conservative Monday Club and the Western Goals Institute, both of which were notable (if dubious) political pressure groups within Britain: he is, IMO, a notable public figure. CJCurrie 19:45, 22 September 2006 (UTC).
• Keep - achieving nothing worthwhile is not a sign of non-notability; <insert failed politician you don't like here> would have been deleted long since if that were true. Lauder-Frost is not important, but importance is not what we want. Lauder-Frost is not successful, that too we don't need. The article is conformant with WP:BLP standards, includes material far beyond mere trivia, and for me demonstrates the undoubted notability of the subject in that third-party reliable sources have seen fit to spill ink on his doings for a variety of reasons. It may well be true that none of the individual references is non-trivial, but there are enough of them to form a coherent and relatively well-referenced biographical article. I wouldn't have known the man from a hole in the ground in May. Now I do, having seen two AFDs since then. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:50, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Just curious, but isn't that argument sort of meta? It amounts to "he's notable for me because this article caused a big fuss in Wikipedia". Nobody disputes that the article is fairly good (partly thanks to that fuss), but we should really look for notability and relevance criteria outside of Wikipedia realm. Duja 09:07, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
    • I'd say it was more on the lines of UncleG's "notability is not subjective" ideas. The article doesn't offend against any core requirements - it is written from a neutral point of view, cites reliable sources and is verifiable. Generally those articles deleted for missing the WP:BIO guidelines also fail to comply with one or more of verifiability, &c. This one may miss the guideline, but does comply with our core values. Because Mr Lauder-Frost can be the subject of a neutral, verifiable and non-trivial biog, he is notable in his way. Perhaps rather circular, but there you are. Angus McLellan (Talk) 06:38, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep - as CJCurrie points out above, despite being somewhat of a minor figure, he has been involved with a number of notable groups as a key member, and that seems to bring enough notability for an article. Unfortunately, if it's kept, it looks like it will continue to be a battleground, from the looks of the anon comment above. Glad I don't have it watchlisted. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:38, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Delete More trouble than it is worth. If the proper article cannot be displayed for legal reasons it should be deleted. GLF supporters think any edits and facts are the work of the 'Left', and anyone who edits it in a way GLF supporters don't like would immediately labelled 'Leftist' and threatened with legal action. GLF is not even a leading figure of the right, so any information in the article relating to past right wing politics is anachronistic anyway, that kind of politics died with Enoch Powell. Why would the Conservative party need a protest opposition group anyway? Conservatives are considered to the right of the mainstream. What it boils down to, is a man that rejects rightist politics in favour of extreme right wing politics. If anything GLF should be sub-headed under categories for that type of Wikipedia entry. 82.1.234.67 21:20, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Bear in mind, encyclopedias often cover information that was important in its time but is now of only historical interest. GLF may not be important now, but he certainly was - and understanding him is helpful in understanding the politics of his time. Captainktainer * Talk 21:28, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Previous anonymous user has made a total of three edits. CJCurrie 22:47, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep notable enough for various media sources. Arbusto 22:04, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep -- Roleplayer 22:14, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - While I would very much like to have this article kept, could you elaborate on your reasons for wanting to keep it? You don't have to, of course, but given that AfD is primarily a discussion and not a vote, it would be helpful for the discussion if you could further explain yourself. Captainktainer * Talk 22:28, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
    • He appears to have notability in organisations that I've never heard of yet that have articles on Wikipedia. -- Roleplayer 11:06, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete. I'm not convinced that GLF is a particularly notable figure as far as we're concerned. He's certainly notable in the small and fetid political pool that he inhabits, but from what I've read of them they seem to be a powerless, obscure and generally insignificant bunch. The average parish council is probably more notable! Wikipedia is not paper, but there has to be some sort of cut-off point. -- ChrisO 23:01, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Captainktainer, the subject is notable as a controversial British political activist. Yamaguchi先生 23:13, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep* While I have sympathy for him not liking that we are reporting facts about him, that is what an encyclopedia.. I think he barely qualifies under WP:N as a high ranking/controversial British Political activist. SirFozzie 23:52, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I don't care about who'll claim it as a victory, about the hagiography of the right, the attacks of the left, the health concern crap, personal requests, or any cost/benefit brouhaha analysis. I just don't, after reading the article, find him notable. If he's worthy of inclusion, there are a huge number of raving loonies we'd better start making stubs for. --Mnemeson 00:17, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. He is not particularly famous, granted, but he has been a reasonably politically significant figure and I am ill at ease with the idea of deleting articles because we don't agree with their politics (I don't agree with GLF's politics myself, for the record). I also think Captainktainer's point about the Monday Club and its ilk having a perverse influence on the Tory party - setting themselves up as The Way And The Truth And The Light and inadvertently inspiring the leadership of the party to react further against them, as much in terms of the mass vs. the elite in culture as in terms of conventional politics, is a good one. The article is (mostly) sourced, is reasonably balanced (and less overtly detailed than it was), and gives a good account of the man's life and personal history. RobinCarmody 02:58, 23 September 2006 (BST)
• Delete. Not notable enough. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:12, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete One relevant standard within WP:BIO appears to be "Major local political figures who receive (or received) significant press coverage". Significant press coverage is a definite term of judgement. Before the 1992 legal incident he had been mentioned in 10 articles in 28 months, or about one every third month. Most of those 10, from the description provided on the archived talk pages, are passing mentions or use of short quotes. In my judgment, this does not constitute significant press coverage. He doesn't appear to have been elected as a Member of Parliament, so the other inherently political criteria is not met. "Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events" does not appear to be met; I read the evidence a decade+ later and across the pond as the event having gotten a bit wider than average coverage because a figure of some public recognition was involved. The last relevant criteria is "The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person. (Multiple similar stories describing a single day's news event only count as one coverage.)" I don't see enough here to say that he was the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works. As none of the WP:BIO criteria are met, deletion is the right answer. Has he is being deleted as non-notable by Wikipedia standards, this is evidence that we don't need to say much about him in other articles. GRBerry 03:40, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep we shouldnt be deleting things just because they MIGHT cause more problems in the future. The subject is notable as a controversial British political activist and should be kept, even if it means patrolling his wiki page more frequently.  ALKIVAR™ 04:09, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• I think that debates over the troubles and legal issues here should be left aside and notability considered on its merits. There are three possible aspects under which the subject might be notable: 1) his political activity; 2) his genealogical activity; 3) his private life. I have investigated his contribution to genealogical scholarship previously and reported on the article talk page that I don't think it makes him notable in itself. He was mentioned as one in a list of about 20 contributors who had helped the compilation of the most recent edition of Burke's Peerage. Secondly, his private life does not appear to be so publicised and unusual as to make him notable; the publicity it attracted was largely due to his political activities. Finally, we come to his political activity, which has previously convinced me to vote to keep. Looking again, I can see he was never an actual leader of the organisations he was involved in, merely a leader of committees and a secretary. I don't think this makes it as high as the bar of notability – though it comes close – and therefore my vote is a weak delete. David | Talk 08:40, 23 September 2006 (UTC).

• Delete: those in favour of keeping this article only wish it to be kept in their approved format - by inclusion of matters already dealt with, and long ago, and so illegal as far as I can make out. If it were proposed to insert instead "legal difficulties" I suspect the small group of his detractors behind all the commotion attached to this article would want it removed. I have spent a good deal of time looking around at those involved on the GLF support side of things, and I can see that a small group of anti right-wing 'administrators' have attacked any number of interesting articles and succeeded in having many of them deleted. In the case of one that I found, John Pinniger, his article was up for deletion, deemd unimportant. (Probably another non-entity). Yet it was suddenly found by some resarcher that this fellow had turned on the Monday Club as 'racist', got a few mentions for it in the media, and so became some sort of a hero. His article was left up. This is not a good sign of objectivity and it is worth commenting upon it here.

Although the prime mover in the initial onslaughts, someone called Homeontherange, who himself appears to have fallen foul of Wikipedia, is said to have left Wikipedia, he has been replaced by people such as Ed Chilvers, who I see at the beginning of June attacked the entire article and reduced it to one single paragraph. It could hardly be argued that this represented fair and balanced editing.

It is quite pointless pointing out whether Lauder-Frost was important, semi-important, or a non-entity. He will always fall into a category depending on the opinions of others. The great failing, as I see it, in the whole controvosy, is the provocative actions and smart-alick sneering by some editors, some far worse than others, and some by 'administrators' (who are never admonished, against the subject and any support he or the article have had. When the provocations have been successful and others have responded, the Wikipedia rule book has been meticulously used to make everyone other than the detractors of the article seem in the wrong. People with no legal knowledge whatsoever have postulated at length on issues about which they have no knowledge. Those who appear to have had some knowledge have been consigned to the scrap-heap by them for daring to oppose the self-righteous, again using the Wikipedia rule-book, which it would appear to me, the novice, at least, they themselves and countless others appear to break with great regularity. I cannot see this ever being resolved because the fairness and neutrality so often spoken of does not really exist. If it does, it is one-sided, and tunnel-vision reigns supreme on all sides.

We are told, at the top of the page, that Lauder-Frost is ill. But I cannot see any posting to that effect on Wikipedia. Have I missed it? Whatever, if I had a young family I would be very concerned about their protection from matters past and certainly would not want them returning home from school saying that other children's parents had told their children not to have anything to do with the LFs because of what they had found on the internet by just typing the name into Google. I am in no doubt The Left, using whatever guise the can, would like to keep the 1992 incident up in lights forever. But it is wrong and it shows Wikipedia up in a very bad light indeed. So just get rid of the whole thing. Chelsea Tory 15:13, 23 September 2006 (UTC).

The matter of GLF's illness was a personal communication to an editor, later reported on the Administrator's Noticeboard. We're all taking it with a grain of salt. As for being concerned about the Lauder-Frost's children, all of the information in the article comes from news stories and publicly available information; the responsibility for notoriety lies with the person who committed the notorious acts, not those who report on them. I'm sure that the incidents are very uncomfortable for the Lauder-Frost family, but the fact of the matter is that they happened, and they have a direct bearing on the subject of the article, who was himself a vital part of the eventual reshaping of the Tory/Conservative party. For that matter, please do not make vague and unsubstantiated claims of "rule-breaking" without providing evidence. Captainktainer * Talk 15:24, 23 September 2006 (UTC).

Comment I trust the "assume good faith" applies not to you. Just one of the many rules that appears to be often raised but is only aimed at people like me. If I may comment on your remarks: providing you are prepared to sit down and trawl through media archives you will probably find something on a great many people. That is not the issue here. You know very well that posting things on Wikipedia means that people don;t have to search for anything. All they have to do is to type a name into a search engine and up will come the article. The issue is common decency and respect for an Act that was passed by the British parliament permitting people to rebuild their lives without having to change their surname. Chelsea Tory 19:22, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Chelsea Tory. Although I've been involved in this for months, you'll note I haven't expressed an opinion yet on this AfD. It's a complex issue, with many perspectives, and I'm still thinking my way through them. I'm thus disappointed that you have again reduced this to an unmixed stream of negatives ending with accusations about "The Left". I think it harms the discussion in two ways. First, it ignores important facts, making it hard to treat the rest of your opinions with the respect they deserve. Ed Chilvers, who you name as an opponent and have frequently accused of malice, has asked for deletion of this article on grounds of compassion for Lauder-Frost. Guy, presumably one of the out-of-control admins you refer to, has seconded it. If they are really part of a sinister political conspiracy, they aren't doing a very good job of it. Second, by being continuously accusatory and partisan, you make it much harder for everybody involved to demonstrate the clear-headed fairness that you claim to seek. I'm sure you're saying these things in good faith, but natural human biases can yield increasingly polar situations. I think both you and we would benefit if you took to heart the requirement to assume good faith. William Pietri 17:13, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment I really don't know what else I can say William. I feel that if you spent the time I have, purposely, reading everything regarding this article (includes what has been said on other pages) you would reach the same "negative" conclusions I have reached, especially given the political comments about GLF (which I presume applies also to the tens of thousands of Monday Club members who have passed through that group over three or more decades), and especially about the two editors whom you mention. They have relentlessly campaigned for the inclusion of the illegal matter, and have been quite denigrating in their attitudes to others who, also, would like to have their say. I agree with you that there is a degree of polarisation on this issue. Articles on political personages should, in my opinion, be avoided by those who are seriously opposed to them. For instance, articles on Labour Party MPs, members, activists, Tribune folk, etc., I have never visited, or edited, because it would end up a re-write or an edit war, as I am so opposed to them and their philosophies. North America, where Wikipedia is obviously based, seems to have a far more vicious unforgiving and, might I say, non-Christian attitude to anyone who may have fallen foul of the law, especially those whom they disapprove of. For us in Britain, who so often hear about US fundamentalists and "bible-belts" this seems a bit amazing. It may be that Wikipedia requires a Political Editor-in-Chief who is as independent as possible, to be a sort of policeman or final arbiter. I understand the concept of Wikipedia being a community, but that might well become a commune, depending upon who makes up the jury. This entire business has been an eye-opener to me. Chelsea Tory 19:22, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

CT, I don't think I'm alone in finding your comments here very disappointing. As regards the issue of the supposed illegality of including certain verifiable facts, that argument has been fought long and hard, and the answer from the Foundation is that they know of no reason to suppose that the basis for supposed illegality would apply to a neutral biography, or to a site hosted in Florida. Beating that particular dead horse is not going to get you very far. As to allegations of bad faith, I find them unpersuasive. William Pietri, for example, has no evident stake in this and has a history of showing exceptional good faith even towards the most egregious POV pushers. Perhaps you would like to try stating the case a little more neutrally? Guy 09:39, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

According to the Talk pages two top firms of UK solicitors both decided the law was being broken. Your suggestion is that they have no idea of the law. Chelsea Tory has clearly set out a very plausible case which you don't wish to grasp because you are a very determined detractor. The only fair thing you've ever done in your jaundiced comments on this case is to nominate the page for deletion. 213.122.129.134 08:31, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

No, a solicitors letter threatening legal action is not a decision that the law is being broken, it is a suggestion that there might be a case to answer, an opportunity for the recipients to either retract and settle or outline (poosibly through their own lawyers) their reasons why they do not believe themselves to be in breach. It is not the same as breaking into a house and nicking the video. If nessesary a judge will decide whether or not there is a case to answer under UK civil law.--Edchilvers 10:25, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree, Guy, but unfortunately these kinds of comments are only what you would expect in the circumstances. The people posting them are political extremists, so they see the world in extreme ways: anyone who doesn't agree with them is part of "The Left" or is "non-Christian". If they'd been around 70 years ago they would have been complaining about Bolshevik and Jewish influences. I suppose it's an improvement of sorts... -- ChrisO 10:04, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

An extemely rude and arrogant posting, at the very least. Yet another individual for whom the "good faith" argument is not a rule. What evidence do you have that the people posting these comments are "political extremists"? From what I have read they are or were all members of the Tory party. Where does that place you? 213.122.129.134 08:31, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment Chelsea Tory, I don't think your comments against Wikipedia are helpful or constructive to this discussion and all in all are pretty pointless. You have made your choice and your choice was delete. Please get off your soap box because your tedious moaning makes it difficult to trawl through the 'keeps' and 'Deletes'. 82.1.234.67 00:43, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Both your language and your conclusion are inappropriate, numeric editor. This is not a vote; it is a discussion. Please review both WP:AGF and WP:NPA if you are unfamiliar with the right way to interact with other editors here. I agree that there are better forums for long discussions about the nature and mechanisms of Wikipedia, but given the complicated history of this article and given that Chelsea Tory is the closest we have to a representative of the subject, I think we should allow them wide latitude. As I said above, polarized debate is the source of much of the trouble on this, and comments like yours contribute to that problem. William Pietri 02:41, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me, Mr. Pietri, I am so sorry I didn't come down to the moaning whinging level of Chelsea Tory, to get your approval for expressing comments. The constant threats of legal action and 'How dare you ignore the British law, blah, blah, blah, are beginning to get more than a little tedious. If as you say it is a discussion then I am allowed my opinion too and I would thank you to keep your opinions to yourself as neither your language or your conclusions are appropriate. Savey" 82.1.234.67 14:26, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

• Strong delete The thing to remember is that this article was almost certainly written by a friend of Lauder Frost with the aim of glorifying him and his achievements. At about the same time as it was created a whole batch of overly long articles on other far right figures involved in an organisation called the Conservative Democratic Alliance were also started and were remarkably similar in style and content (in some cases passages were word for word the same with only the names changed). All were extremely sympathetic to their subjects and made it appear as though their lives were an unbroken stream of success). GLF, needless to say is a leading member of the CDA. When the Lauder Frost article was nominated for deletion for the second time the puff pieces on his CDA friends also went up for the chop. GLF's was the only one to survive, albeit in a much reduced form. It seems to me that the purpose all along was to big up GLF and his friends and draw attention to the CDA. Personally I think that this has gone on far enough. Call it compassion, call it non-notability, call it bowing to pressure from trolls -whatever you like. With the exception of William I don't think anybody involved in this issue comes out looking very good. Lets draw a line in the sand and move on.--Edchilvers 17:30, 23 September 2006 (UTC).

Really, I cannot see the evidence to support these claims. If you read the Encyclopaedia Britannica you find biographical articles and a great many political activists who both you and I have never ever heard of. But they all played a role in the democratic process. It can be quite annoying to know about the existance of a pressure-group and yet know nothing about the officers of it. I think we would all like to know something about them, wouldn't we? One of the problems with Wikipedia, it seems to me, is their almost total reliance upon press notices to decide whether or not an individual is important. Such a yardstick to me is a nonsence and should be used with great care. Chelsea Tory 19:48, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment This was the first edit - It doesn't read like a "puff piece". JASpencer 17:26, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete The article is more trouble than its worth. Christchurch 18:11, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Seems we need to nail down the definition of "notable" as some seem to think damed near every human on the planet is notable. •Jim62sch• 23:07, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Drivelling semi-literate self-publicising rubbish about some fascistic nobody probably written by subject. Wikipedia doesn't exist to provide ego-trips for social and psychological inadaquates.65.57.106.34 13:18, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Keep I've been thinking quite a lot about this because I have crossed swords with GLF plenty of times off wikipedia and I wondered whether I should comment. I think that he does meet the standards for notability because he was chairman of the Monday Club when it was an important, if declining, element within the Conservative Party. He also generated rather a large amount of press coverage in the national press. So he meets the notability criteria in WP:BIO, and if his views were less controversial I don't think we would be having this argument. If there were not the legal threats or his ill health I would say that this case were open and shut, as the fact that this is the fourth AfD demonstrates. On the other hand there are legal threats and ill health - and so I am sympathetic to the idea that this article is more trouble than it's worth. That's why it's a weak keep. JASpencer 17:22, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, or stubbify and protect My vote would be delete per Guy, who is no pushover. But I would have no objection to a short, NPOV stub omitting the problematic material, as well. Newyorkbrad 23:10, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Notorious but not notable, he was never worth the trouble. Too bad for User:William Pietri, who seems to have put a lot of time in this.--Pan Gerwazy 10:44, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete He wasn't even Chairman of the Monday Club. Why waste time on this guy? Time to move on. 213.83.69.50 12:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. On reflection, nothing in the article as written establishes notability. If there are reliable sources that establish that GLF was an important figure in the British political scene at some point, however, the article should probably stay. With regard to the personal appeal, I'm sympathetic, but I would prefer that he make the appeal to the foundation, rather than letting us muddle through the issue. TheronJ 13:17, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

• Please forgive me going on at length here, but I couldn't find a shorter way to do the question justice. For readability, I've broken this down by argument:
  • From a strictly personal perspective, I'd rather see this article deleted; it has been a time sink and a drama generator for months now. But I don't think difficulty or contention are good grounds for deletion; it means Wikipedia can be harrassed into altering content.
  • Some suggest deletion because of his opinions, but I think that's antithetical to an encyclopedia's spirit and purpose.
  • On the other side, some suggest deletion because of systemic bias against people with opinions like his. I can see the point, but I think the appropriate solution is to counter systemic bias consciously. An encyclopedia that can only tackle bland topics isn't of much use.
  • The legal questions are interesting, but I think they are red herrings. Were this encyclopedia hosted in Britain and run by a British organization, British law and norms would matter. That's not the case, and so British freedom-of-press restrictions matter no more than Chinese or Kazakh ones.
  • Notability is a finer matter and reasonable people could disagree, but having read through much of his press coverage I think he qualifies, albeit at the lowest rung.
  • Compassion is the next argument, and it comes in two forms. First is the sort of compassion that motivates the British law mentioned: that once you've paid your legal debt and kept your nose clean, the conviction should be forgotten. I feel for that, but I don't believe that it's the business of an encyclopedia to manipulate its readers. I think people who meet Lauder-Frost should treat his conviction as a long-forgotten issue, but I trust them to make that decision on their own based on our neutral presentation of the facts and their recognition that one's public record is a small, small fraction of what a person is.
  • The other argument from compassion is that the article subject is ill and that the article causes him distress. This one moves me personally, and it's a clear illustration of why WP:BLP sets a much higher bar. But when I think of how we could make this into a broader policy of deletion or suppression of uncomfortable truths because of the discomfort they cause, I fail to imagine anything workable.
• And so, although I would like Lauder-Frost to be at peace and would like to have a little more peace myself, I end up at a weak keep. However, if others do envision a plausible compassionate deletion policy I encourage them to write it up and push for adoption. On AfD number 5, that would enough to change my recommendation. William Pietri 16:37, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. He's really a very minor figure on the impotent far-right fringes of UK politics, and ironically the article wouldn't have been here at all but for the efforts of his "friends", who are now baying for it to be removed since they find they can't control the content, while still holding that he's notable. He's not. --ajn (talk) 17:24, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Keep just looking at how many pages link to this page. He may be a self-publicist but he's a pretty successful one. Mr Clean 12:11, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep He might be a minor figure on far right politics in the UK, but bearing in mind this is the 4th nom, its survived 3, I would suggest this is possibly a bad faith nomination. Its been voted on and either kept or no consensus 3 times previous, i would wait a while and see what happens. Thor Malmjursson 13:08, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm puzzled by that. After having read the text at the top, why would you think this might be a bad-faith nomination? And how would you expect waiting a while to help the specific issues people have raised? Thanks, William Pietri 14:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
    • I consider anything which has been nominated and SURVIVED 3 times, only to be nominated for removal again, a bad faith nomination. Forget the waiting on it, its been marked 3 times, people have not been able to reach consensus or get a clear keep vote, I say leave it alone. Thor Malmjursson 18:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
      • You did read at the top where this nomination was inspired by newly received information, yes? It seems that Guy and Ed Chilvers, who both advocated keeping the article in the past, are acting in entirely good faith in now calling for its deletion. I could understand you disputing their reasoning (which I don't think you've done quite yet), but I think impugning their motives is inappropriate and isn't supported by the facts here or in the article's extensive history. William Pietri 19:54, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• keep please this person was secretary of the monday club and held other high posts not a suitable candidate for deletion Yuckfoo 01:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.