Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gregory Lauder-Frost (2nd nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Humansdorpie (talk | contribs) at 15:36, 6 June 2006 (added comment; unsigned tag). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Gregory Lauder-Frost

Vanity article by marginal fringe figure and/or his friends. See also Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gregory_Lauder-Frost. Homey 02:00, 4 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]

  • I'm going to vote keep. The article has been allowed to fall into a state of disrepair, with GLF and his friends adding a disturbing amount of trivia, dubious assertions and unverifiable original research. There's little question that much of the current piece is vanity, and should either be deleted or significantly truncated. Notwithstanding this, Lauder-Frost is a public figure (of sorts) in the United Kingdom: he once held a leadership position in a fringe organization, and has been cited in the mainstream media numerous times. This article is in desperate need of revision, but the subject is above the threshold of notability in my eyes (unfortunately). CJCurrie 02:42, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep but Rewrite/drastic cutting down Marginally notable, but article needs major rewrite and editing out of non-notable detail Bwithh 03:37, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: long-winded vanity article about irrelevant maggiphile. NN POV. --die Baumfabrik 04:03, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I read through that whole thing, and it took about five minutes (and I read fast) to figure out that he sat on many comittees and been to many dinners, but he's done nothing of encyclopedic value. Teke 06:38, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He is a significant enough figure in the British political scene who is commonly interviewed on British news programs on controversial political and monarchy issues. Ben W Bell talk 07:13, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nothing wrong with this article. I strongly disagree with Lauder-Frost's politics myself, but he is politically important and significant. I cannot help thinking that Homey is bringing his/her politics into Wikipedia far too much. RobinCarmody
  • Incidentally, Baumfabrik, though I hold no brief for GLF, he is not a "maggiphile" if by that you mean a fanatical admirer of Margaret Thatcher - he is a different kind of conservative. On the Conservative Democratic Alliance's web forum, he (ironically, considering his fervent anti-Communism) expressed admiration for the Soviet Union's blocking of Western TV signals and suggested that we in Britain should do the same thing with American-style satellite channels. An ultra-Thatcherite would no more say that than express admiration for Arthur Scargill. RobinCarmody
  • So what? Lightoftheworld 16:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it does seem to meet Wikipedia:Notability_(people), but needs some serious chopping down. - Motor (talk) 09:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, subject is mentioned in enough non-trivial works to meet WP:V and certainly seems notable enough. Needs a subject expert to be WP:BOLD in cutting this down - Peripitus 11:29, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable British politician Fred Bauder 12:19, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable enough for WP:BIO --Nearly Headless Nick 14:01, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Certain parties who have admitted to being personal aquaintances of Mr Lauder Frost have been rushing to defend this article like its the Ark of the Covenant. Even minor edits have been torn down straight away and the editor subjected to a volley of abuse and accusations of 'vandalism.' This alone should demonstrate the impossibily of maintaining its objectivity.

User:Edchilvers.

  • Much of what you've said is here is untrue. Over 60 users have edited this article. Supporters of GLF, just like supporters of Karl Marx, are, hopefully, still individuals. Lightoftheworld 16:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: vanity. A genealogist and accountant who, 15 years ago, held a couple of positions within one British fringe political organisation (with fewer than 600 members) and held an honorary post in another; resigned after being accused of cheque fraud, and rejoined a couple of years ago. Lauder-Frost is an untiring self-publicist, contributing to Wikipedia under a number of names, but he is politically unimportant, and I do not believe he meets WP:BIO. He has never held local or national political office. No BBC news programme appears to have interviewed him since 1992 [1]. While I note Peripitus' and CJCurrie's points about non-trivial works, the press coverage cited in the article is almost entirely self-generated in the form of letters to the press. GLF gains 1420 G-hits, but once again they all seem to be either Wiki mirrors or self-penned postings to various blogs, forums and genealogy web pages. This isn't a notable individual - it's an individual desperate to appear notable. Humansdorpie 14:51, 4 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Please get it right. When he resigned t=from the Monday Club, the leading Tory pressure group int he UK at the time, it had over 1600 members of the National Club plus those in the branches. Lightoftheworld 16:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:I have commented on the Talk Pages, all ignored and abused. But points in the above need comment. Lauder-Frost resigned from the Monday Club (at the time had 1660 members and about 45 members of both houses of parliament) before any arrest or charges were brought. He has appeared in several news interviews in the past decade. As for letters to the editor, these equate to a public statement by the individual. If in a political position they carry importance. As for friends/supporters of GLF supporting his entry, how does that differ from this concerted attempt by similar politically-minded friends on Wikipedia ganging together to destroy it? Sussexman 06:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentBased on the length of the article one would think Gregory Lauder-Frost is the most important person in UK politics today and one of the most important people who has ever lived. The article is mostly filler of little interest to anyone outside of Lauder-Frost's immediate circle and while Wikipedia is not paper I guarantee you that no one but a vanity publisher would ever put this article in print. Editors who were banned by the ArbComm from this article have been flouting the ban by editing as anon IPs from a dynamic ISP and a circle of Lauder-Frost's friends and supporters have expanded this article to excruciating lengths and are tenacious in defending the inclusion of the most trivial of details such as who attended what dinner. The only surprise is that they have not (yet) posted the menus on the rationale that they give the reader a sense of the importance and dignity of the occasions. The article is unencyclopedic in its length and content. Homey 14:53, 4 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment:This comment has been lifted straight from the Talk Page. I don't see this as a vanity article but as a catalogue which gives us a political biography of the subject over a considerable period. Sussexman 06:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thats rubbish. I in no way see myself as being a political opponant of Mr Lauder Frost. I know little about his activities, have never met him and nor, to my knowlege, have I ever had any contact with him whatsoever. As for Mr Lauder Frost himself I doubt if he even knows of my existance. User:Edchilvers

    • Nor have you ever met me, but that has not prevented you from posting hundreds of abusive posts on numerous internet sites. Moreover, you are well aware that Gregory Lauder-Frost is a longstanding political colleague of mine.

In order to demonstrate that you are motivated purely by concern for the welfare of Wikipedia, would you care to tell us which other Wikipedia entries you have asked to be deleted (following previous vandalism)?Mike Keith Smith 19:26, 4 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]

  • Delete egregious puffery of someone whose significance to anyone other than his close associates remains to be demonstrated. Scores about half as many ghits as I do (and I am my own benchmark for non-notability); excluding WP and mirrors removes about a third of them, which is never a good sign. I am unclear which part(s) of WP:BIO this person is supposed to meet. Just zis Guy you know? 20:02, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: vanity article which seems to be primarily maintained by political allies (friends?) of Lauder-Frost. - Christopher Lame 20:12, 4 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Comment Ain't that the truth, it should stay but needs a severe haircut and tidy. Ben W Bell talk 07:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a largely self-promotional piece. An exercise in vanity. (— Preceding unsigned comment added by Endomorph (talk • contribs) )
  • No signature. Lightoftheworld 16:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Marginal figure. Self-puffery tilts me to deletion. -- GWO
  • Keep. Article needs cleanup, not deleting. David | Talk 10:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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) )
  • Keep - conditional: that if reworked that is not carried out by declared opponents of either article or individual.

GLF was a very prominent figure on the respectable Tory Right. He consistantly supported the traditional wing of the Conservative Party (UK) and spoke out constantly for his beliefs. He was a principal officer and activist in the most prominent Tory pressure group ever. No (referring to comment above), he was not an MP (selection has been tightly controlled by liberals since the mid-1980s) but he did more for Toryism than any of the time-serving careerists who do absolutely nothing for conservatism.

Lets be absolutetly honest here. He/his article has been attacked almost from inception by the likes of CJCurrie and his friend Homeontherange, as well as GroundZero on every pretext they could possibly think of. Homeontherange tried before (December) to get this article deleted when it was a fraction of its present size. Now he is trying again. (He has also attacked just about everyone and every group with any association with GLF with the most self-righteous, cynical, and sarcastic comments imaginable). Homeontherange has now used as his principal arguments vanity/flattery and lack of sources. Yet when more sources were added following that complaint he deleted them anyway. (Please name me one article that displays as many sources as this biography?) As for the vanity/flattery bit I would argue its garbage because I cannot see anything there that is untrue: it is a political biography of a figure who was extremely active in his cause.

Now I understand that some of you may be Left-wing and see Lauder-Frost as 'the enemy'. That he may (have) been. But give him credit for supporting what he believed in, just as you do. Thiose interested in British politics will normally have heard of him. One further bonkers comment by the detractors: that of "anonymous" posters. You all know this is just yet another excuse to attack those you don't like. Please grow up. We are ALL anonymous. Calling yourself 'The Mummy' and flagging up a template saying you're a native English speaker tells us nothing. Get real and get decent. Wikipedia's policies, so many of you say, are "civility" and "good faith". I don't see that present in so many of the detractor's comments. Lightoftheworld 15:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment
  • "Those interested in British politics will normally have heard of him." I'm sorry, but that statement is simply untrue, for the very good reason that he's never achieved anything - unless you count attending dinners, writing letters to newspapers and contributing to obscure periodicals which probably count themselves fortunate to have a circulation running into four figures. You just don't get it, do you? It's nothing to do with being left or right wing. To take an example - and I stress I am not comparing the two men in terms of their beliefs - I personally have a deep loathing of Nick Griffin and all he stands for, and in terms of the political process he's a nobody; I do believe however that there needs to be an article on him, because any survey of the British political and cultural landscape which leaves him out will be seriously deficient in explaining the events which affect anyone who lives in modern Britain. On that criterion, GLF is simply a nonentity. I realise he's important to his friends, as we all are; unfortunately that doesn't make him interesting to anyone else, and Wikipedia doesn't exist to provide a fan site for anyone. --Stephen Burnett 20:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Almost certainly this entirely new "Stephen Burnett" is a sock-puppet of one of the detractors. Of course everything Lightoftheworld has said is absolutely correct. GLF was very prominent in his day and he was a research assistant for John Biggs-Davison for two years at Westminster. He is well known. I once attended a meeting, about ten years ago, at which John Redwood was the speaker. During questions he sat and answered them, and looked totally disinterested. Then someone quoted GLF. Redwood's face actually lit up and he stood up, to answer with difficulty. This is not a fan mail from me but a statement of fact. Sussexman 07:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The org he belonged to is clearly notable, but I was unable to find enough substantial material to be sure he met WP:BIO. I've not worked on many bios before, though, so I'm very open to some non-partisan editor pointing out what they feel qualifies the article as a keep. --William Pietri 23:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: It is clear that the combined effort of some Wikipedians to marginalise and demonise the traditional Right (as opposed to the BNP et al) is never going to leave articles of this nature alone. That way William Pietri's comment will always be applicable. Thats what they want. To be able to suppress such articles so they can say these people are "fringe". Past edits by people like Homeontherange in particular demonstrate almost evil malice with an intention to portray such individuals as GLF as positively over-the-hill fringe extremists which they were not (unless you were a left-wing journalist - as most are). So yes, get rid of it. Sussexman 07:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: from Wikipedia's own rules: Editors must take particular care when writing biographies of living persons, which require a degree of sensitivity. There are some editors on Wiklipedia who abuse this rule absolutely. Sussexman 08:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: - on condition that a rewrite is not carried out by those who have voiced their loathing of individual/article as it stands. To show your magnaminity you might request Sussexman to attempt a rewrite and present it to someone for consideration. Whilst he has given his support to the article and individual, it would appear that he has virtually never contributed to the article. 81.131.91.205 12:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Having read the discussion above it seems clear to me that the proponents of deletion are largely politically motivated and are attempting to stifle historical facts of legitimate public interest. This is political censorship of the worst sort and it would be a disaster if Wikipedia were to allow it to succeed. The thin end of the wedge no less. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Milneg (talk • contribs) 14:38, June 6, 2006.
    • Really? Censorship? Of the worst kind? Or maybe it's just that not everybody is convinced of the notability of this character. People like me, a Brioton with some interest in the politics of my country? As a rough guideline I have found that almost every article whose potential removal is denounced as "censorship" turns out to be worthless; arguments based on policy and guidelines cut slightly more ice. Which criteria of WP:BIO does this person meet? Just zis Guy you know? 15:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
LOL! Given that this article exists solely because of someone who has a political axe to grind, that is rich! Perhaps you could clarify precisely what is my political motivation here? Citing evidence, of course. Just zis Guy you know? 15:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep What next book burning ? --Gibnews
  • Comment Closing admin might like to bear in mind that a Request for Arbitration in Jan 2006 found that someone purporting to be Gregory Lauder-Frost has a well-documented history of editing articles under a number of different account names, as well as anon ISPs in the range 213.122... and/or 81.131... Humansdorpie 15:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gregory_Lauder-Frost_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=57191842"