Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Keith Smith

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:31, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Keith Smith[edit]

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

  • "Keep" - I thought the idea of wikipedia was that anyone or anything of any significance could be looked up. Mike Smith is a leading member of a political party and leader of an association aimed at changing our politicial spectrum from the current one dimentional - same government (no matter who you vote for) - to a multi-dimentional conviction political spectrum we all need if democracy really does exist and isn't just part of some alice in wonderland lie! If this gets deleted, then I'm going to expect that similar artciles on other leading political activists and commentators be deleted (mmm who should we start with?). Lets have a cull of such people on Wikpedia. Or is this censorship politically based? If this goes, I will be nominating a long list of people who should join it!86.20.41.187 23:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: "Alice in Wonderland" - Wot? With Mr Smith playing the role of Humpty-Dumpty? Endomorph
  • Delete:: Never heard of him, Michael who? (— Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.182.62.130 (talk • contribs) )
  • Delete:: Vanity Article, insignificant politcal nobody211.48.25.2 13:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: depressing vanity article. NN POV. --die Baumfabrik 03:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete almost as notable as the marginally notable Lauder-Frost. but not quite Bwithh 04:12, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • First edit is todayHomey 15:29, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup - a candidate in a parliamentary election for a significant party, seems noteworthy to me. Rain74 13:13, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Keep --MoTwo 14:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • MoTwo only started editing today. Homey 14:17, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Humansdorpie 17:47, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Delete not notable. possible vanity. --manchesterstudent 22:34, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[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) )
  • 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) )

  • Comment: but its fine for the admin guy to 'hate' all these various figures and groups on the British Right and call for their deletion or demonisations? Oh, good. At least thats clear. Sussexman 08:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: And who do we know from Sussex??? Don't be such a drama queen, Smith's entry is up for deletion because he is a nobody in respectable British politics, he is an attention seeking right winger who spends most of his time posting a variety of rude and obscene messages about the Conservative Party and its leadership on his own message boards. If he was well known in respectable Conservative Circles as you put it, he would be listed in the search engines as being 'A well known respectable Conservative, but he is not. Most entries deal with the Conservative party dumping the right wing Monday Club to shake off its racist image, and Mike Smith setting up the CDA in an attack on the Conservatives's cleaner and respectable image. (— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.3.163.1 (talk • contribs) )
    • Comment: I would support deletion not of Smith's article, but of unsigned comments as above which have been made by those who lost a recent libel action to him and supporters of the loser. Hundreds of thousands of people live in Sussex. I know a few. How many do you know? What a stupid comment. 81.131.91.205 13:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
<<Removed personal flame war about unrelated court case for the second time. Please keep comments relevant to the deletion debate - Wikipedia is not Usenet. Humansdorpie 18:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC))>>[reply]
  • Delete. Minor failed politico/hack. -- GWO.
  • Keep: Michael Keith Smith is a well-known figure on the respectable Conservative Right-wing. He has been a parliamentary candidate and an active Tory for decades holding office at local levels. He is presently Chairman of the Conservative Democratic Alliances and was previously on the Executive Council of the Conservative Monday Club for many years. Sussexman 08:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Smith is a major figure on the respectable traditional Right. 81.131.91.205 13:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • the above "vote" is from an anon IP. Homey 19:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If Smith is a "major figure" then the respectable traditional right is in a parlous condition indeed. Endomorph
  • 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)
    • the above "vote" is from an anon IP. Homey 19:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]
            • We ought to get this clear with the Prime mover of all these deletions, User:HOTR. You may provoke responses as much as you like, in the hope that you can then attack users as being uncivil and not acting in "good faith". But be clear on this please, as every individual who ever uses Wikipedia must be, you are just as anonymous to all of us as someone editing just using their ISP code. So your silly notes above about "anon IP"s are meaningless unless this assessment page is to be decided by a biased kangaroo court. 81.131.77.243 20:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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 33camhouses (talk • contribs)
    • The above "vote" was made by an editor who started editing todayHomey 22:13, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: campaigners on the British Right deserves their place in the sun too. Check out the endless biographies of Canadian politicians on Wikipedia who no-one in the entire world has ever heard of (especially all the Communist Party non-entities). Has anyone from the British Right been attacking them? Calling for their deletion? Some bias showing here, thats a certainty. 81.131.77.243 20:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Evidently a significent minor political figure currently under personal attack. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.134.225.131 (talk • contribs)
    • Above comment made by an anon IPHomey 22:13, 6 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Keep: What's wrong with the Right? 86.139.132.193 22:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep:Any reader of the respected British anti-Fascist periodical Searchlight knows that Smith is one of the key players in the massive realignment that is taking place on the post-Cameron right. Leaving him our would be ridiculous. Seems that certain capitalist elements are desperate to hide the fact that the right is alive and well and very much part of the system they uphold General Kongo 09:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepWiki is an encyclopedia, not a forum for personal views, and should therefore contain facts, however discomfiting to a minority of readers62.56.69.250 11:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I agree with the previous entry. Wikipedia is not a forum for personal views and should not be subject to the kind of huffing and puffing that is contained in Mr.Smith's entry which is basically not much than a list of dinner appointments and letters to the editor. Important though all this "much ado about nothing" may have been to him it is of no interest to the wider world.Endomorph. *Comment: If one believes Mr Smith's supporters we deletionists seem to span the entire political spectrum. On Smith's CDA Forum we are described as " Far left activists and traitors" and "the combined forces of evil" Yet General Kongo above believes that we are "certain capitalist elements" whilst Barry believes that we are "politically motivated PC types". If this is true then we are disparate indeed but we atleast have one thing in common,the belief that Mr Smith's outrageous example of self-promotion is unworthy of Wikipedia and should be deleted.Endomorph

Keep: Mike Smith is a well known figure on the Right in UK politics. Some politically motivated PC types seem to be wageing a vendetta. regards Barry 66.222.88.90 02:43, 8 June 2006 (UTC). Keep: the CDA is a viable and important part of contemporary UK political thought and discussion. MIke Smith is an important part of that organization. Atruelove 19:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep No reason why I shouldn't vote for myself, and it's pretty obvious that the following two malicious posters know very well who I am or they would not be posting. Mike Keith Smith 16:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]
    • less than 50 edits (and most of them are on AFDs). Homey 05:43, 8 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Comment: Editors should be clearly aware of the campaign and its management here and on Stuart Millson and Gregory Lauder-Frost. It demonstrates clear hatred by some administrators and total lack of control by the Wikipedia Foundation. Sussexman 08:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]

  • Keep: Hopelessly biased attack on a leading figure of the Tory Right. Lightoftheworld 10:16, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Mr Smith is not a "leading figure of the Tory right". In fact he is not even a member of the Tory Party having left some years ago when they failed to measure up to his pristine standards. Mr Smith is the leader of the miniscule CDA a right wing pressure group which exerts no pressure, is generally unheard of and which, when it is so, becomes the subject of mockery and derision. Endomorph


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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Michael_Keith_Smith&oldid=1138077061"