Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Keith Smith (2nd nomination)

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) 2007-01-01 00:49Z

[edit] Michael Keith Smith (2nd nomination)

Michael Keith Smith (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}}

Malformed nomination, I completed this for User:Edchilvers, who will hopefully add a nomination statement. I have no opinion other than that I checked and this article is not identical to the one deleted in June, so speedy criterion WP:CSD#G4 does not apply. ~ trialsanderrors 19:30, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep He has been the subject of non-trivial articles by reputable sources including the Guaridan, so I say it passes WP:BIO. TSO1D 20:30, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Three claims to notability in the article backed by more than one non-trivial mention in mainstream news sources. Clearly meets WP:BIO. JASpencer 20:33, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep He has been the subject of multiple non-trivial articles by reputable sources. Is this nomination politically motivated vandalism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevin Murray (talk • contribs)
    • The article has been deleted prior, so there is no reason to assume this. ~ trialsanderrors 01:29, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per JASpence, also should not have been deleted prior, no excuse to do it again. --Xiahou 03:57, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Linked nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conservative Democratic Alliance JASpencer 22:10, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge & redirect to Conservative Democratic Alliance. The man isn't notable himself - he is only important in the context of the CDA. There isn't much interesting or relevant to say about him that can't be covered there (that article needs improvement, of course). This looks like a re-run of Gregory Lauder-Frost, IMHO. Keep per JA Spencer --SandyDancer 23:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Above user voted delete "in current form" for CDA article. So merge and redirect would be to nowhere. JASpencer 09:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment I didn't, actually. I said it needs to be rewritten and should be deleted if it isn't. My assumption was someone will rewrite it because it is a hopeless article. --SandyDancer 13:46, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. --Strangelv 03:19, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I created this entry as a useful bridge between the significent libel decision of Keith-Smith v Williams and Mr Smith's 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. 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 a possible suspicion of bad faith. Perhaps he would care to comment? James Loughton 13:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  • It is unfortunate that User:Edchilvers hasn't stepped forward to offer an explanation for why the article should be deleted. Keep. -- Geo Swan 00:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep: a person of some note in conservative circles and Chairman of the Conservative Democratic Alliance, which, according to reports, has over 1000 members. Chelsea Tory 12:10, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
    • If being in charge of an organisation with 1000 members makes a person notable in your opinion, then I think you set the bar far, far too low. Half the schoolmasters in the world would qualify for articles! --SandyDancer 01:38, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Note Could someone put up the no voting template please?A discussion has started on Tracey Williams' forum (of Keith-Smith v Williams) No votes have been asked for, but it may start. (The CDA forum, which has called for votes in past AfDs doesn't seem to have noticed these two are up yet). JASpencer 20:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC) (NB. {{afdnewbies}} now up}. JASpencer 20:58, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep: Whatever one thinks of his politics, which tend to strongly polarise opinion (understatement), he is significant in the light of what might well be seen in years to come as a landmark libel case. RobinCarmody 23:42, 30 December 2006 (GMT)
Comment In all honesty I don't feel terribly strongly about this. However, for the purposes of having a proper debate - could someone who has voted "keep" explain to me why the man himself needs an article, distinct from the article about (1) CDA of which he is chair and (2) the important libel case which he was party to? Yes, the CDA is notable, yes, the case is notable - but is he?
There are plenty of clubs, pressure groups etc. more prominent than the CDA, the leaders of which don't have articles (and rightly so). There are much more important landmark legal cases where the plaintiff and the defendant don't have their own article (and rightly so).
Setting aside whether or not the nominator may or may not have a personal issue with the subject of this article (I gather he does), I think these questions need to be addressed. --SandyDancer 01:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, notable because of the legal precedent established by his lawsuit. --Duke of Duchess Street 05:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl (talk) 06:53, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Fuzzy Math! Nine Keeps and No Deletes is not forming a consensus? --Kevin Murray 08:55, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment in response to Sandy Dancer I think that we need to look at this in three parts. Firstly there are more assertions of notability than the two mentioned. There's the leadership of the Monday Club's "ultra" wing in their last days, then there's the attempt to expel Smith personally for from the Conservative Party that forced the Tories to back down after attracting a number of unhelpful media articles and finally there was the candidacy in Portsmouth North for UKIP which was credited by Smith, the Tory candidate and the analyst Richard North for stopping a Conservative win in that seat. These are all backed up by quite a lot of non-trivial coverage in the mainstream press. Now these are all related to his political activities but the political activities are not all within the realms of the CDA.
The second point is that even with the two assertions of notability - they are seperate enough to warrant a bridging article. When you count in the other political activities (particularly the UKIP candidacy in Portsmouth) this point is more crucial. While the argument that if he only attracted attention as the leader of the CDA, or only the UKIP candidate or only the plaintiff in Keith-Smith v Williams then he would have no independent notability might have some merit, as someone who attracts attention from all three fronts then he merits an article as a bridge between these.
Lastly there's a more general point. Politics is never simply about the people who hold official office it's about the sea in which these fish swim. It is important for a student of politics to get an idea of the people who are in the background influencing the political climate. People such as Mike Smith, Tim Montgomerie and Mark MacGregor may not be well known to the public - sometimes by their own choice - but their influence means that they should be known - at least by those who wish to find out. Des Wilson in the Liberal Democrats or Neal Lawson in Labour would fill similar positions. While I have little sympathy with vanity articles or articles for every councillor on a particular council, influential non-office holders should be included - whether or not one agrees with their politics.
JASpencer 09:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks JASpencer. I see your point - thanks for summing things up like that. Vote changed to keep. --SandyDancer 16:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep got enough influence to be noted -- therefore notable Alf photoman 16:58, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Would WP:SNOW apply now? As Sandy Dancer's comments have been answered and Ed Chilvers has not come on to explain why it should be deleted, can we now close this discussion as keep? JASpencer 18:26, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per obvious notability. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 20:08, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and close The consensus- and notability- are both rather obvious. -- Kicking222 21:55, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Obviously notable, better sourced than most articles, very little support for removing... Not sure why this is still open. --Falcorian (talk) 23:24, 31 December 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.