Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gregory Lauder-Frost (third 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 of the debate was Keep. Paul Cyr 18:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gregory Lauder-Frost

This article has been decimated and demonised and should now be removed. Originally contributed to by over 60 different editors, over 6 months, it was originally 7.5 printed A4 pages long. It has now lost all proper relevance. Sussexman 06:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gregory Lauder-Frost (2nd nomination)Homey 15:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• Nonsense. The article is much improved now that it is free of all the irrelevant information such as ancestry and letters to newspapers etc. It gives a much clearer and consise version of who GLF is. User:Edchilvers.
• Keep; minor but IMO notable political figure from the far right of the Conservative Party. That his friends and supporters are now unhappy with the article merely shows that it's now a bit more NPOV. And 60 editors? Only if you believe every IP editor was a different person despite the obvious closely related IP ranges. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 07:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Don't see how he is not notable. What does 7.5 pages mean? ~ trialsanderrors 07:28, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Don't understand reason for deletion. -- Samir धर्म 07:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• It means it's not the hagiography Lauder-Frost has been working diligently into making it. See here for his latest rebuff. --Calton | Talk 08:09, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. This nomination is misconceived—it's the result of a long edit war over the content of the Gregory Lauder-Frost article; see the talk page. Spacepotato 08:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Minor but enough. --Calton | Talk 08:09, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. The article is much better now that it has been cleaned up Endomorph
• Keep The article is alright as it is. Maybe it should actually be locked. Williamb 11:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Yes, it should be kept and locked. But it should be kept in the form of the consensually agreed version which we had prior to Sussexman's latest bout of vandalisation.Endomorph
• Keep "Vanity article or bust" isn't our policy. Homey 15:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep prominent Tory convicted of fraud against his employer (a health authority). We kept it even when it was a hagiography of no evident interest, now it is a much better article why should we turn round and delete it? Just zis Guy you know? 15:23, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. No valid reason is given for deletion, and the motives of Sussexman are highly suspect. I do not know that the individual named is all that highly notable, but he is of minor interest in the field of British politics---especially of its largely irrelevant royalist right-wing. Keep and protect per Endomorph. ---Charles 17:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. What's wrong with it? --M1ss1ontomars2k4 ^{(T | C | @)} 17:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep as apparent bad faith nomination. Looking at the edit history of the article it appears this is a clear and simple case of one editor being overrulled on article edits by community consensus, so they are instead trying to get the article deleted on flimsy grounds. If the article is shorter today than it was before, that is because numerous editors have spent time editing out the fluff and sourcing the claims made in the article. Don't like the content? Find verifiable sources to counter the claims therein, or find a way to argue for deletion based on the criteria at WP:BIO, but don't game the system just because you are losing an argument.--Isotope23 19:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Important

I must tell you all that I today recieved a letter from Gillespie MacAndrew solicitors threatening me with civil action under scottish law unless references to Mr Lauder Frosts criminal convictions are expunged. Should you require further information please email me at lordcurlyton@yahoo.com User:Edchilvers

That's a bit odd since you added no such references to the article. Looks like you might have grounds to countersue. Homey 17:48, 20 June 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.