Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conservative Democratic Alliance

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 Keep. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-31 06:17Z

[edit] Conservative Democratic Alliance

Conservative Democratic Alliance (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
  ATTENTION!

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}

Sorry but I don't see anything notable whatsoever in this article. It seems, for the most part, to consist of a series of descriptions of the organisation's key personnel (none of whom seem to have held any sort of political office whatsoever), letters they have written to national newspapers and dinners that they have held over the past few years. I have looked long and hard for more information and have discovered only two actual news stories about them - both from the BBC news website in 2002 noting their split from the Monday Club - hardly headline grabbing stuff.--Edchilvers 15:47, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - doesn't seem like a notable group at all, despite the fact that the article tries to make them look very notable. No non-trivial coverage by any reliable sources and nothing to show really notability. Jayden54 16:22, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep If The Independent, The Guardian and Searchlight magazine, in which there have all been non-trivial mentions linked in the article, are not reliable sources I'm not sure what are. As they are all linked in the article itself, and Ed Chilvers has previously been a collaborator with the leader of the CDA, although this has fallen sour I'm not sure why he is unaware of this fact. Surely, surely, he would not run a bad faith AfD. JASpencer 20:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep: The CDA is a prominent Conservative group which has overtaken the old Monday Club in trumpetting traditional Toryism. It is well known, a major irritant to Conservative Party "modernisers", and its Chairman often appears in media interviews. As User:JASpencer highlights, EdChilvers has been active since he arrived on Wiki in attacking the CDA's chairman and just about anyone else involved with them. Bad faith AfD? You bet. Chelsea Tory 21:28, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Very well show me the evidence. How is it a thorn in the side of the Tory party? How is it influential? As I have said I am always willing to be proved wrong as long as it meets the Wiki criteria which, at the moment in my opininon it doesn't--Edchilvers 23:49, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per JASpencer's citation of references. Ground Zero | t 21:32, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I am always willing to be proved wrong but from my POV the article in its current form simply does not match the WP criteria for inclusion. This is a political organisation we are talking about here and yet it reads like a Euology. If it is so influential where is the critisism? it strikes me that this article has been written by supporters of the CDA itself as a means of bigging itself up. The point I am basically trying to make here is that local 'Conservative Club' organisations dont get articles on Wiki and yet they seem far more influential on Tory policy than this bunch--Edchilvers 23:37, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
  • CommentKeep - this article needs to be completely rewritten, and fast. Ed Chilvers is right when he says "the article in its current form simply does not match the WP criteria for inclusion" and "it reads like a euology". If there is noone who comes forward and does so, I'd definitely vote delete. There are clearly interested editors here willing to get involved - why don't they take a long hard look at the article, look at articles for comparable political organisations, and get editing? --SandyDancer 23:49, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: SandyDancer and Ed Chilvers are the same person. He has been attacking other articles on right-wingers and right-wing groups for some time. Needs investigating. 81.153.222.241 19:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

::It is always somewhat laughable when people make ridiculous sock puppet claims. Even more laughable when they make such accusations using an IP sock themselves! You amuse me. --SandyDancer 19:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I think it is you that needs investigating - for evading bans on anonymous editing imposed by Arbcom - see here. --SandyDancer 20:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Fair points about content, but is an AfD a suitable response to a content dispute? JASpencer 09:02, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Why isn't it? Starting AFDs due to content dispute might be inappropriate, I grant you. But making comments on content in an already-initiated AFD is OK, surely? Let me clarify my viewpoint - it seems to me that an article which complies with Wikipedia's standard could be written about this organisation - but to date, hasn't been. Users who want the article to stay should make some commitment to improving it. --SandyDancer 20:06, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
I do see your point on the content. Thank you for clarifying your position on keeping the article. JASpencer 09:14, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Definitely shows the notability of this organization. Academic Challenger 01:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. As above. Tonytypoon 01:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Strangelv 03:16, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I have become involved here in a roundabout way because I created a brief biographical entry for Mr Smith as a useful bridge between the significent libel decision of Keith-Smith v Williams and his political activities which, although they are diametrically opposed to my personal views, are of general interest and frequently featured in the leading anti-fascist journal Searchlight. Mr Chilvers is actively seeking to have that biog deleted together with this linked article. In common with Mr Spencer I am concerned by the involvement of Mr Chilvers in this AfD. On his own admission he is a former friend and associate of Mr Smith who has since fallen out with him, and that raises the possibility of bad faith. Perhaps he would care to comment? James Loughton 13:14, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment If we have an article on Smith and the CDA then we have to have one on Gregory Lauder-Frost. The reason we dont have one on Gregory Lauder-Frost is because it was deleted by Brad Patrick (head of Wiki legal) after Mr Lauder-Frost threatened legal action against myself and the Wikipedia foundation because he objected to certain aspects of his private life mentioned therein. I'm certainly not going to lose any sleep if the article stays but I do believe that an article on any political movement requires balance which at the moment this article does not have.--Edchilvers 17:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
      • As far as I can see, the facts he objected to being stated in the article weren't "aspects of his private life" - they weren't private in the least, and in fact were matters of public record. --SandyDancer 20:08, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Let's avoid personal spats, shall we? If EdChilvers and SandyDancer think the article needs editing there's nothing to stop them from editing it. One assumes that the previous editors are more-or-less happy with the content so demanding that they make unspecified alterations isn't really on. Maybe Ed and Sandy would like to cite examples of passages to which they particularly object, stating why they object to themJames Loughton 22:51, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment I would love to edit this article and I have a wealth of information on the subject. The only problem is that I am worried that if I even correct a spelling error then Mr Lauder-Frost and Mr Keith-Smith will sue me. Having recieved a solitors letter I have previously been advised not to touch articles such as this--Edchilvers 23:19, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
        • OK - I am going to edit myself. --SandyDancer 23:25, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep -- This nomination seems frivolous. -- Geo Swan 00:45, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - I largely disagree with this organisation's politics (although I can sympathise with some of their views), but I disapprove equally of politically-motivated deletions. If it was as long and exhaustively detailed as GLF's entry became at one point I could understand, but it is a succinct and concise piece of work on a group which represents a fairly widely-held point of view (in certain circles). RobinCarmody 23:38, 30 December 2006 (GMT)
  • Keep, but rewrite. Remove material that lacks citation and remove the laundry lists of who went to what meeting. --Duke of Duchess Street
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.