Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stuart Millson

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 no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:36, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[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}}.

• I vote Keep. It is irrelevant if Millson is noteworthy. The article sheds light on the politics of his times, and it should stay as long as it if factually true. Edwin Hale
• I'm going to vote keep here as well. As per the Lauder-Frost article, the content is pretty shabby but the subject is notable. CJCurrie 03:02, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: no, this guy isn't noteworthy. An entertaining article, but NN and POV. --die Baumfabrik 03:53, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not as notable as Lauder-Frost, who is only marginally notable Bwithh 04:10, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Millson is, in his way, a prominent political figure who has become a mouthpiece for a certain movement and way of seeing the world which feels that it has lost the other representation it once had. I don't think the article is biased; it is a reasonable and balanced description of the man's views. RobinCarmody
  • RobinCarmody has not edited since February. The above was actually posted by an anon IP. Homey 09:19, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • In fact I have regularly been editing; I just haven't bothered to log in. It was definitely me posting above; I have logged in now. RobinCarmody
• Delete, doesn't seem to meet Wikipedia:Notability (people). - Motor (talk) 09:50, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: The man is a political nonentity, and has not published any significant body of work either. "Vanity article" seems a fair assessment. --Stephen Burnett 17:26, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • Burnett appears to be a sock-puppet. 81.131.91.205 13:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It is self-aggrandising self-serving rubbish. Millson is not a notable politician in any sense of the word. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.3.163.184 (talk • contribs) .
• This delightful comment placed by either Chilvers or his friend Williams. 213.122.134.193 07:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • • What a surprise!81.131.91.205 13:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. He is notable on the right-wing of British politics. David | Talk 10:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- Doesn't meet WP:BIO in my opinion. Reyk _YO! 20:18, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: another target for User:HOTR. Millson is a very well-known and prominent figure on the British respectable Right. Sussexman 08:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Keep: as per the last extremely accurate statement. How do such fantastically biased Users get any kind of status within Wikipedia? How many more articles will be attacked like this? 81.131.91.205 13:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • posted by an Anon IP.Homey 19:13, 6 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]
    • Just as "anon" as you. Having a funny pen name tells nothing but your targets and comments on Wikipedia tell us everything. 81.131.77.243 20:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • For those who are new to Wikipedia editing, I should explain that here on Wikipedia editors are often judged by their contribution history. That is, on the merits of their work here. People who don't create an account or sign in are often seen as novices or people unwilling to stand behind their edits. If that bothers you, the easy solution is to create an account. --William Pietri 02:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • All that tells us is that there are a bunch of sad people around with nothing better to do than spend their time in front of a PC screen boosting their egos by pretending to be up there with the editors of the Britannica. Still, at least you have the courage to sign your posts unlike the anonymous malicious creep HOTR.Mike Keith Smith 06:18, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: censorship sux, just cause someone doesn't like it, doesn't mean the rest should suffer— Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.231.166.82 (talk • contribs) .
• Keep, censorship by bigots is never an attractive option. Brin— Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.79.47 (talk • contribs) .
• Keep: Wikapedia should realise that people in politics can often suffer politically motivated attacks, included concerted attempts to delete them from Wikepedia. Please don't. - Chris Cooke — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.78.204.62 (talk • contribs)

• Keep: Wikipedia should realise that people in politics can often suffer politically motivated attacks, including concerted attempts to delete them from Wikipedia. Please don't. - V. Clark,B.A. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.197.174.48 (talk • contribs)

• Comment Although I personally favour retaining the article, I do not believe that many of the preceding "keep" votes are legitimate. CJCurrie 21:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. If the fellow is notable, the article doesn't tell me why. I'm glad to be persuaded otherwise. As an aside, I'm very disappointed in what I presume is an outside attempt to stuff the ballot box, which in any case won't work. --William Pietri 23:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Nobody asked you for your pompous opinion. Pretty obvious from your profile that you are the kind of nobody who thinks his words are worth their weight in gold. The only ballot-stuffing round here is coming from politically-motivated malignants and their sockpuppets.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike Keith Smith (talk • contribs)
  • Assuming good faith, I'll take that as feedback on my writing style. Thanks for that. If you have questions about Wikipedia policies relevant here, inlcuding WP:AGF, WP:NPA, and WP:DP, don't hesitate to ask. --William Pietri 19:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Millson is a significant figure on the radical right of British politics. <<removed unnecessary personal attack on nominator -- Humansdorpie 13:33, 7 June 2006 (UTC)>> Mike Keith Smith 00:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Started posting on June 4th. Poster's eponymous article is also up for deletion.Homey 00:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: As with Lauder-Frost and Smith Millson is clearly being targeted by people who want to hide the truth about the capitalist-far right alliance. You only have to read Searchlight to recognise that Millson is one of the leading far-right intellectuals formerly allied with Jonathan Bowden who now heads the BNPs think-tank. General Kongo 10:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • First edit today Homey
• Keep* Whatever you think about his views, he is someone who has made waves, and merits inclusion by any objective criteria you care to mention. Why are liberals only liberal up to a certain point?62.56.69.250 10:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Millson is well-known in radical dissident circles.80.229.162.84 20:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Millson is at least as well known as many others in Wikipedia. Attempts to exclude him are politically motivated. regards Barry.66.222.88.90 02:35, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Millson is a significant figure in responsible, prudent and definitely well-supported current UK feelings on immigration, asylum, the dangers of Islam and the like; Wikipedia cannot be allowed to become a spineless regurgitation of 'liberal' opinion and prejudice. Atruelove 19:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 12th edit ever.Homey 05:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]
    • So what? Sussexman 07:55, 8 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.