Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim Montgomerie

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 no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tim Montgomerie

Just a blogger. All the external links link to his friends' blogs. Delete.

Also, 82.35.73.41 had this description:

The reason is that the person is just a blogger and is not notable enough. If you look at the article all the sources about him are on his or his friends blogs. --SonicChao 23:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment 82.35.73.41 has been banned for vandalism. JASpencer
• Looking at the log, ISP (which is a BT Internet one and shared with many home users in the UK) was blocked temporarily - block having expired - not banned. --SandyDancer 10:05, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - page appears to be self-promotion. I (shamefully) avidly follow politics in the UK and have never heard of this guy. Maybe his time will come one day. --SandyDancer 23:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment Why then did you perform a major edit on this article, followed a number of edits? In the edits you claimed that "Montgomerie appointed himself the first full-time Director of the Conservative Christian Fellowship" and that he "as appointed as research assistant" to IDS. They both may be true (although the second does not agree with the CCF press release - but that may be wrong) but it doesn't square with someone who's "never heard of this guy". JASpencer 00:22, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Please calm down, be civil and assume good faith. Do you have a personal interest here?

I made those edits because I came across the page via 18 Doughty Street and saw it was a puff piece. I therefore edited it based on a more realistic, less spun reading of the limited sources. Standard practice on wikipedia chum. --SandyDancer 23:27, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Never met Montgomerie, and am not particularly hot on the Tories these days either. Pointing out that a comment is untrue (edits on 7 Nov, "never heard of him" on 10/11)is not a personal attack, but a fact. And it's assume good faith, not practice it even when the contrary has been shown as, in the discrepancy between the edit history and your original comment. JASpencer 09:01, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - A two sentence blurb in a newspaper article doesn't assert enough notability for inclusion. Caknuck 01:50, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete fails to assert any notability scope_creep 17:11, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Conservative Home is one of the more succesful UK blogs, and has attracted a number of MPs, etc. Also founder of Conservative Christian Fellowship, first director and Political Secretary of the Conservative Leader. "Just a blogger" is an inaccurate description. JASpencer 23:35, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment I've never accused someone directly of a bad faith nomination before, but I think that this counts. A very quick Google search came up with mentions in the FT, BBC, New York Times, Sunday Herald and New Statesman. Also bylined articles in the Independent (1) and The Guardian (3). Why was Google not searched first? JASpencer 00:16, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, article may need work but plenty of sources are cited. Seraphimblade 13:19, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per SandyDancer. Redirect to Tim Montgomery, the sprinter, if deleted. SliceNYC 02:25, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

As if Wikipedia were not America-centric enough. Google shows 49,400 hits for "Tim Montgomerie" Conservative and 38 for "Tim Montgomerie" sprint. JASpencer 10:15, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with America-centrism, just a potentially common misspelling. SliceNYC 13:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per SandyDancer. After performing a Google search, out of the hits prior to the WP article, the top was the CCF itself, followed by numerous blogs (not sure what JAS was thinking of, but commentisfree.guardian.co.uk is a blog), one article linked here notably with a misspelling, and one commentary/editorial on The Independent. The following page are all bloggers' responsa to him, or mentioning him. Per the articles he has written, Montgomerie has no real notability except through the CCF, and yet no one knows exactly what it is he did as director. Therefore, I would have to come to the conclusion that while the CCF seems notable, Montgomerie's notability is not asserted. MSJapan 04:06, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment Was that the Google search that came up with 60,700 hits? So the first nine have a number of blogs, the lesson being that blogs tend to be over-represented on Google. Have you actually looked at the article which shows articles in the BBC, New York Times, Weekly Standard, Guardian, Observer, Sunday Herald and Financial Times? Yes they don't come up on the first page of Google, but looking a bit further, or even looking at the article, will show that he's quoted on a number of times. I'm tired of the "haven't heard of him" school of deletion. Wikipedia should have a place for the influential backroom types as well as MPs. JASpencer 10:15, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment surely lots of the 60,700 hits would be for other people called Tim Montgomerie? I am sure there are hundreds of them in the world. And some refs would be misspellings of the more famous athlete's similar name. Just as you may be sick of people nominating for deletion because they hadn't heard of the person (admittedly a weak argument), I think quoting the number of hits on google doesn't work, particularly if the subject of the article is a person with a relatively standard name. --SandyDancer 11:25, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Please re-read the comment. I said that MSJapan had relied on the first two pages of the Google search, and that with 60,700 hits there was likely to be more information. My point is that you can't talk about sources if you don't look at the article and at the time he put in his comment the article had citations from a large number of news sources (admittedly there are more now). JASpencer 11:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment While I agree that Google hits should not be a definitive measure of notability (for or against), I certainly think the source cites within the article qualify as non-trivial mentions from multiple reliable sources. Seraphimblade 11:29, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

It really begins to look like you have a personal bee in your bonnet about this. What's the story? Come on share it with the rest of us ;-). These deletion debates can be very amusing. --SandyDancer 10:29, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment SandyDancer, I -am- a deletionist and I voted keep here. Citations are made in the article through, among other publications, The New York Times, the Financial Times, and multiple mentions on the BBC. My idea of the notability guidelines is that they are intended as an extension of the verifiability guidelines, in that a non-notable subject will also tend to be unverifiable. However, in this case, the subject is both notable and verifiable, and clearly passes the WP:BIO requirement of multiple secondary source mentions. Please also do remember to be civil and assume good faith. Seraphimblade 10:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I think I'm not the one with a problem about civility and assuming good faith around here...--SandyDancer 10:48, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

If you do believe I've been uncivil, please let me know why and I'll take your concerns under consideration. However, comments such as you made to JASpencer are neither civil nor assumption of good faith, being a pure guess regarding another user's thoughts and motives. Please comment and attempt to rebut what he said, don't make accusations of bias without cause or evidence. Seraphimblade 10:51, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't implying you had not assumed good faith, rather that JASpencer hadn't. Please read the full discussion before commenting. --SandyDancer 11:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I did, and in fact addressed both possibilities as I was unclear on which you meant. Seraphimblade 11:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Tim Montgomerie is notable for his work at 18 Doughty Street TV, as a blogger at Conservative Home, and as the Conservative Christian Fellowship's founder and leading figure. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 11:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Notable and verifiable and as per User:JASpencer. Billions 16:28, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Although his name may not be well known to the public, I think his work is sufficiently notable to justify an article about him. Plus, it is well-sourced and verifiable. DWaterson 21:36, 13 November 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.