Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Keith Smith

Michael Keith Smith

vanity article by marginal fringe figure, delete Homey 01:51, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete: depressing vanity article. NN POV. --die Baumfabrik 03:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete almost as notable as the marginally notable Lauder-Frost. but not quite Bwithh 04:12, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. It is saying something when I, as a Leftist, defend the right of CDA figures to have entries on Wikipedia, but I feel I have to. "Homey" has made sneering anti-socialist, the-free-market-is-the-answer-to-everything remarks which make me, as a Leftist, hate him/her far more than traditional conservatives who at least aren't Thatcherite cultural vandals. As is often the case these days, what unites people like me with traditional conservatives, against the new centre ground, is greater than what divides us ... certainly, I feel that Homey's obsessive personal agenda is irrational and wrong-headed. We should not be deleting articles about people just because they aren't ultra-populist Americanisers, which I think is Homey's real motivation (he/she would, judging by the remarks I quoted above, be just as likely to want to delete articles about traditional socialists such as myself). RobinCarmody
  • The above was actually posted by an anon IP. RobinCarmody hasn't posted since FebruaryHomey 09:21, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Sorry, I decided to sign my posting without logging in! It *was* me; I've logged in now. RobinCarmody
    • ""Homey" has made sneering anti-socialist, the-free-market-is-the-answer-to-everything remarks" As an aside, what in the world are you talking about? What were these remarks you are attributing to me?Homey 15:27, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki, article is vanity. Story could be the subject of a Wikinews article but it doesn't justify a Wikipedia article. - Motor (talk) 09:03, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• I am the subject of this article, which I did not instigate. I believe that the original article was written by JASpencer, a Conservative Party activist who is not a supporter of CDA and subsequently augmented by others.

Whether or not the article remains or is edited or deleted must be left to Wikipedia. I would simply comment as follows.

Firstly, you may feel that notes on the Chairman of CDA are relevant to anybody researching the CDA article on Wikipedia. You may also feel that the references to the landmark internet libel action Keith Smith v Williams will be of use to internet law researchers.

Secondly, I have reviewed the current content of the article and find no falsehood in it. Providing 'citations' even for such mundane matters as (eg) my membership of the RICS, is less easy than it sounds.

Thirdly, recent 'vandalism' of this article appears to have been instigated by Tracy Williams, the loser in the recent landmark action Keith Smith v Williams and her associate Ed Chilvers, who has indeed published on the internet an abstract concerning what he believes to be the 'facts' of the case. http://www.lvl9.org/article.htm. You may gather from this that there is bad blood between Chilvers and myself.

As to the motives of Williams and Chilvers, you must draw your own conclusions from these facts.Mike Keith Smith 10:27, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• • First edit is todayHomey 15:29, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
    • May I enquire as to the relevance of that comment. If Homey has, as is alleged, an 'agenda' he/she should not be a Wikipedia administrator.Mike Keith Smith 16:27, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete - fails the political requirements in WP:BIO. I would say to Merge to the Conservative Democratic Alliance article but that one is a mess at the moment anyway - Peripitus 11:26, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup - a candidate in a parliamentary election for a significant party, seems noteworthy to me. Rain74 13:13, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Or at the very least trim down. Surely we dont need to know all about his family history, and the article remains grossly under-sourced. User:Edchilvers
• Delete, fails WP:BIO. --Nearly Headless Nick 14:00, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep --MoTwo 14:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • MoTwo only started editing today. Homey 14:17, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Humansdorpie 17:47, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Pointless excerise in vanity and self-promotion.
• Delete: fails the political requirements in WP:BIO. Merge details relevant to Conservative Democratic Alliance to that article. --Stephen Burnett 20:50, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete not notable. possible vanity. --manchesterstudent 22:34, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete This appears to be merely a vanity article by a fringe figure. Endomorph
• Keep. I think this meets the requirements for notability through being chair of the CDA and the manner of his leaving the Conservative Party. David | Talk 10:30, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: The Conservative Democratic Alliance describes itself as a pressure group that in reality stands candidates in other parties like UKIP as the Chairman Mike Smith did in the last UK General Election, therfore unless the Conservative Democratic alliance has made some real political achievements I believe the entry should be deleted, one reason is because it is not accurate as it does not explain Smith's role in the CDA honestly, and two it reads as a self-promoting vanity PR exercise. (— Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.13.238.150 (talk • contribs) )
• COMMENT

" but I feel I have to. "Homey" has made sneering anti-socialist, the-free-market-is-the-answer-to-everything remarks which make me, as a Leftist, hate him/her far more than traditional conservatives who at least aren't Thatcherite cultural vandals. "

You can't ask for an entry to be kept just because you 'hate' the admin guy. Get real.(— Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.13.238.150 (talk • contribs) )

• Delete. Minor failed politico/hack. -- GWO