Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stuart Millson 2

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 delete. - brenneman ^{L} 04:06, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stuart Millson

This article went through an AfD vote last month but I believe it was wrongly decided. There is a very clear pattern of sock/meatpuppeting in the vote. Of the 17 "keep" votes, all but four were recorded from anonymous IP address and new user accounts; another was recorded from User:Sussexman who has since been indefinitely banned. Of the seven "delete" votes, only one was recorded from an anonymous IP address. In view of the apparent attempt at vote stacking, I believe the anonymous/new votes should have been discarded. This would have resulted in the vote being 6-4 in favour of deletion. I have re-listed this article for deletion in the light of the clear abuse of process. Votes from anonymous IPs and new user accounts will NOT be counted given the previous, externally-directed attempt to stuff the ballot. I will not be voting, but I will be keeping an eye on proceedings. -- ChrisO 23:33, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

The reason given for deletion in the original AfD stated:

Vanity article about a marginal figure whose main contribution seems to be writing letters. Replete with original reserach. Homey 02:58, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. In my judgment his political campaigning activities make him clearly notable. David | Talk 23:34, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
• his letters have appeared in The Times, The Daily Telegraph and The Sunday Telegraph does not establish notability. Neither does a list of self-authored sources. If others (reputable sources) have written about him he's notable. As of now, Weak Delete. ~ trialsanderrors 23:47, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  • A Lexis-Nexis Euro search retrieves 17 hits over the last ten years, most of which are his letters, but there are some scraps of minor notability ca. 1997-2001. Modify to weak delete. ~ trialsanderrors 00:21, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I observed that the process was deeply flawed last time around, but I still think he's notable enough for an article. CJCurrie 23:46, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I don't agree with his politics, but I don't think that's any reason to remove articles. He is, in his own way, reasonably significant. RobinCarmody
• Delete I don't see what he's done that is of any notability. Homey 04:17, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - a political nobody who's career seems to consist of letters to the papers and what appear to be self-published newletters. --Charlesknight 12:15, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: I count three letters written by Milson on The Times website [1], but no articles actually written about him. Not very notable for a British political activist. --  Netsnipe  ^(Talk)  12:59, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Millson was mentioned in an article by Dominic Kennedy entitled "Griffin's views 'are shared by many Tories'" which appeared on page 10 of The Times of August 25, 2001, and in a correction to that article published on August 27. He was also mentioned in a David Aaronovitch column of August 2, 2005 which appeared on page 14. I can get a comprehensive list of press articles in which he has appeared in recent years (separating from letters written by him) if it would be useful. David | Talk 13:25, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
    • But has anyone in the British mainstream press actually profiled him? Or are they always snippets and/or a single quote from him each time? Also: 0 mentions of him on bbc.co.uk. --  Netsnipe  ^(Talk)  18:46, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
      • No. As per the Lexis-Nexis search, we're talking about scraps. ~ trialsanderrors 18:51, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, from the article (and google) he's a letter writer, self-publisher and minor political activist. Fails WP:BIO - Motor (talk) 13:28, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Vanity/torycruft, of the type loved by unlamented Sussexman. Wikipedia is not a list of everyone ever mentioned in a newspaper article. -- GWO
• Delete Writing letters to the papers and self-publishing a few pamphlets doesn't constitute notability. "Vanity article" sums it up, I think. --Stephen Burnett 23:17, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete He appears to be only a very minor figure. Endomorph
• Delete. I'm sorry it didn't go first time. Back on 2006-06-04 I said that this article was NN and POV, but entertaining. Now it is a shambling mess, STILL without citations. I'm guessing that, after a month of discussion, the lack of citations points strongly towards a case for NN deletion. --die Baumfabrik 00:49, 4 July 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.