Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Thorpe-Apps (3rd nomination)

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 delete. & salted DGG ( talk ) 00:15, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Thorpe-Apps

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A conservative blogger with no real evidence of notability. Note that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Thorpe-Apps related to a simple case of copy-and-paste vandalism. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Thorpe-Apps (2nd nomination) did relate to this guy - an article with ridiculous claims that he was editor of The Times. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:09, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find any real trace of notability of this person beyond facebook and a couple of blogs. Given the history of this page I am assuming a vanity page. Travelbird (talk) 22:12, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Marcus Qwertyus 23:11, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt: This is the ~~third~~ EIGHTH time this non-entity has had an article thrown up, and my, it gets fun. The creator of this version, User:Andrewthorpeapps, was indef blocked as a vandalism-only SPA the day this article was created, and somehow no one caught it. The buck promptly passed to User talk:Ldybagt2010, a SPA who removed PROD tags from the article without comment ... and still no one took this to AfD. Then the torch was passed to User:95.146.234.188 and User:95.146.231.61, two more SPAs. Now we have User talk:Abjk421, who likewise has removed PRODs and AfD tags without comment and likewise is an SPA except for edits on Alex O'Connell (fencer), something which the anon IPs also edited. Perhaps a checkuser is in order, given the likelihood that this is Andrewthorpeapps dodging his indef block. At the very least, this article ought to be salted. Ravenswing 15:37, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It gets thicker, by the bye. This purported blog is less than two weeks old (without a single comment on any entry, unusual for a supposedly well-known blog), and while the article claims that the subject is the "lead writer" for the Conservative Future movement's blog, there doesn't seem to be any connection between the subject's blog and the movement. He was referenced in the CF article ... an edit a few days ago by one of the anon IPs already under suspicion of sockpuppetry. Ravenswing 14:55, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He is a non-notable author with no coverage in reliable sources. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 22:24, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's clear that, whatever the previous history of the page, this particular article is very different in content. Each page must be considered on its individual merits. It also contains numerous references - and this could not be said of previous pages under the same name. Mssunshine1977 (talk) 09:22, 22 October 2010 (UTC) :— Mssunshine1977 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Reply: Just out of curiosity, Mssunshine, how could you possibly know what the previously deleted pages said? You've just joined Wikipedia, after all. That being said, there are only four references. Two of them didn't mention the subject at all, and the third was a self-submitted entry that didn't support the assertion being referenced; they've now been removed. The fourth is the subject's own blog, which of course doesn't qualify as a reliable source. Ravenswing 14:36, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable author. And I would second a call for a checkuser on all these SPAs.<edit> Which I have now requested here. -DJSasso (talk) 11:57, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable per WP:BIO or WP:WEB. NawlinWiki (talk) 14:41, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per lack of notability. GoodDay (talk) 16:17, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; blogger, no indication of notability. Hey Mid (contributions) 09:44, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt per Ravenswing. Given the ludicrous amount of times it's been deleted I'm surprised it isn't protected already. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:07, 24 October 2010 (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.