Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A.V.R. Smith

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 Vote was to DELETE. Anonymous votes have been excluded due to strong suspicions of sock/meatpuppetry. ChrisO 21:18, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. 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 may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Delete. Another non-notable vanity article from the Monday Club set. Went to some dinners and edited a club magazine. Homey 04:15, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From a quick tour on Wiki I see that the nominator has been attacking the UK Right-Wing for months on end, relentlessly. Users should be aware of his agenda. 195.194.75.209 16:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, too right. How can it be a vanity article if AVR didn't write it? 81.129.155.181 22:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's vanity for those associated with the Monday Club/CDA set making their members look more important then they are, thus making the whole set look more important than it is. Homey 22:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Think you've exposed an obvious agenda of your own here. 86.139.185.202 11:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Tychocat 08:17, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, fails WP:BIO. --Coredesat 10:08, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Clearly an icky individual, but seems to have some reference value. Wikipedia is not just for nice people. Wikipedia should have documentation on UK apologists for apartheid. WIthin that context, some Monday Club people may be more notable than others. TruthbringerToronto 15:10, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: a pivotal figure on the UK ultra-conservative right-wing in the years up to 1992. Wiki has countless articles on Reds; why not bios of The Right? 195.194.75.209 16:32, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Above is by an unregistered anon contributor.Homey 22:28, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So what? I'd vote that his opinion is equal to/better than yours. 86.139.185.202 11:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: how can anyone say that AVR Smith was not notable? 81.129.155.181 22:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Above is by an unregistered anon contributor.Homey 22:28, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant. Just as "anon" as you. 86.139.185.202 11:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: AVR Smith was a mover and a shaker and is a well-known personality in Tory circles. Just read both his article and the two articles on Western Goals (UK) and Western Goals Institute and decide for yourselves. 86.139.185.202 11:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • above is from an unregistered anon IP. Homey 18:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No evidence of notability; I've not found any press coverage of this individual at all. Attending dinners is not a notable activity! -- ChrisO 18:16, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. seems like delete arguments stem from political ideology. im not on the far right myself, but he seems to pass notability test. article rambles a lot and needs to be cleaned up. Joan-of-arc 19:57, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Above contributor has made less than 50 edits, most of them are on AFDs. Homey 20:20, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think this vote should be discounted - the user's edit history doesn't suggest a connection to the Monday Club / GLF cabal. However, I'm entirely of the opinion that the anonymous votes above and in the related AFDs on John Pinniger and Mark Mayall should be discounted on the grounds of suspected sock/meatpuppetry. -- ChrisO 21:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.