Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gregory Lauder-Frost

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Please note, this AFD has been withdrawn. Homey 19:52, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gregory Lauder-Frost

Vanity article for a political figure who is on the margins of being marginal. The inclusion of trivia such as the fact that he's written letters to the editor or that he sat in front of Margaret Thatcher on one occasion and beside Jeffrey Archer on another is just some of the needless padding in this article, padding made in a desperate effort to make the subject (author?) seem even slightly important by association. What has this man done of any consequence or notability? I've read the article and I still don't know. Homey 05:51, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Undecided erring on a very weak keep - he does appear to be a genuine person but whether I would describe him as a politician remains to be decided. It would appear from a google search that he is better known as a professional genealogist although this definitely does not give him grounds for a Wikipedia article. -- Francs2000 13:39, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • weak delete, seems to be written by him about him, which creates a much larger onus to prove notability Sherurcij 14:43, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

Note: The article is currently locked due to a dispute. I don't think it's proper to AFD a locked article. In addition, there is very curious message on Homey's talk page from a person involved in the dispute:
Could you look over the discussion taking place on this page? CJCurrie 23:17, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
There's more ...
I think it might be time to take official action. CJCurrie 02:03, 8 December 2005 (UTC) (emphasis added - Mirror Vax 17:02, 8 December 2005 (UTC))
"I don't think it's proper to AFD a locked article."
Why not? It's not proper to change the contents of a locked article (the deletion tag was added without changing the contents of the actual article, btw) but there's no reason why there can't be a discussion and vote on whether that article merits deletion.
Rather than attack the process or make dire insinuations why not simply state, based on the merits of the article itself and its subject, why you think the article should be kept or deleted?Homey 16:28, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

The "very curious message" is a request by one admin to another to look at one article and then look at three others. Note that CJCurrie did not even make a suggestion as to what I should do or think, he simply asked me to look at the articles. He never suggested I conduct an AFD and, frankly, I thought it as likely that he'd oppose the AFD as support it.

Perhaps you are unfamiliar with wikipedia but such communication between editors is quite common - though I appreciate your attempt to make an insinuation about a non event. Indeed, given that the article is an example of blowing copious amounts of smoke in an attempt to make an unimportant person look important it's perfectly fitting that you now blow smoke in an attempt to make an insignificant piece of communication look ominious.

Perhaps instead of trying to create smokescreens you can address the actual merits of the article and explain to us why Mr. Lauder-Frost is a figure of enough significance to warrant an article. Can you come up with anything more compelling than the fact that he writes letters to the editor and sat (on two occasions!) beside or near important people?Homey 16:36, 8 December 2005 (UTC) Homey 16:36, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Three hours after CJC - who is heavily involved in editing the article and the dispute - made the cryptic request to Homey to "take official action", Homey used his admin powers to AFD a locked article. The locking action was taken by another admin to let the situation cool down. CJC was apparently unhappy that he was prevented (by the lock) from reverting to his preferred version, so he got his admin friend to AFD it. The article remains locked. All very improper, IMHO. Mirror Vax 16:59, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
You don't need admin privleges to start an AFD on a locked article. All you have to do is go to the AFD page and list the article and then put the tag on the article's tag page. But, if for no other reason than to get the procedural question out of the way, I will terminate the AFD and consider restarting it when the article is unprotected (proabably within 48 hrs). Then you'll have to come up with an actual reason for defending it. Homey 17:53, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
So why do you think the article mertis inclusion in Wikipedia? In your enthusiasm for consipiracy theories you've failed to address the actual issue.Homey 17:21, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I'll respond to this in a few moments (I'm working on something else at present), but I would encourage readers to review the history of Talk:Gregory Lauder-Frost if they want information on this matter. There is something improper happening here, but it's not on my (or Homey's) side. CJCurrie 17:12, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • In response to Mirror Vax: I have reason to believe that the Gregory Lauder-Frost article is one of several, written by a small group of people who have been using Wikipedia as a soapbox for narrow partisan ends. My comment about "official action" was made in relation to this, not to the particulars of the GLF article.
  • I've spoken to the person who protected the GLF page (we had a friendly discussion, actually), and I've made it clear that I do not intend to remove the protection notice or re-edit the page in its current form.
  • I would again encourage readers to look over the Talk Page for GLF, as well as the page history of Western Goals Institute. CJCurrie 17:35, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Incidentally, Homey was correct -- I did not request that the article be placed on afd, and my personal preference is that it be kept and corrected. CJCurrie 17:37, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/r/t/Wikipedia%7EArticles_for_deletion_Gregory_Lauder-Frost_3f50.html"