Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keith Madeley

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. v/r - T P 14:24, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Madeley[edit]

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

Doesn't meet notability criteria + this person is spamvertising his wikipedia page sciencewatcher (talk) 14:25, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He won an award that was given at the same time to a "raft" of other people in his home town. He's a local businessman, a home town booster, and probably a fine fellow. However, not notable by Wikipedia standards. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:29, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I arrived at this page after receiving a spam email from Honey Pot Mail which Mr Madeley appears to run. Since this appears to be the only reason for this page I have added a speedy deletion request. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjpg (talk • contribs) 21:36, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Same as commenter above - received a spam message and looked him and honeypotmail up here. Should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.177.17.101 (talk) 12:33, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am familiar with this company and know that their databases are all opt-in and consequently they have several brand name clients. I am sure they would confirm this if approached by anyone who is unhappy with their emails. Their website states that they have a database of 360,000 'members' so I would expect more than 3 complaints out of 360,000 people, if it was actual spam.

On the contrary, such a low complaint rate is evidence that it is actually an opt-in database. Based on this complaint rate, if they emailed everyone in the UK simultaneously they would only receive 519 complaints nationally.

I see the subject's emails connected with this company and confirm that the subject's Wikipedia page has been included, on occasion, in the email signature as a source of further information. I can see no problem with this in Wikipedia's guidelines.

With regard to notability criteria:

The subject is the main topic of the following references, thus exceeding the notability criterion for 'significant coverage': http://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/business/business_opinion/business_opinion_chris/8785385.Well_deserved_honour_for_character_Keith/ and http://www.aroundtownpublications.co.uk/online/celebrities/wakefield-mr-yorkshire.html

Both sources are clearly secondary, with obvious reliability (i.e. editorial integrity). Both sources are also self-evidently independent of the subject. For example, the Telegraph and Argus Newspaper is owned by Newsquest Media Group, which has no connection to the subject.

The above establishes the presumption that the subject is suitable. This presumption is accurate because the evidence is verifiable from a wide variety of sources which have built up over several years and not as a consequence any short-term promotional or publicity efforts. --109.153.45.0 (talk) 00:28, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, you seem to be the person who created this page, and you are involved with the company, so your opinion doesn't really count. Are you Keith? Secondly, the lists are definitely not opt in - you purchased my email address from an illegally harvested mailing list without my permission. Third, when I look at spamcop alone I see 10 reports for your email, which is pretty typical of spam. If it wasn't spam you wouldn't see any spamcop reports at all (spamcop users aren't your typical hotmail idiots who click the spam button willy-nilly). --sciencewatcher (talk) 15:02, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say this seems like either a personal, or completely emotional attack with no evidence whatsoever given (or even attempted) for either the claim about the veracity of the email list or the notability of Keith Madeley. It is impossible for anyone to know whether their details are legitimately held by a particular company or not because of 'third party opt-in'. I advise readers to Google a definition of this legal term, and if they find it unacceptable, for them to never share their details with any company without first reading that company's privacy policy line by line and checking whether they may 'share your details with selected third parties'. As for Keith Madeley's notability, the post on 4th August has put this beyond doubt, as have the original page's citations. I wonder what is really behind anonymous Vendettas like this...--83.244.233.130 (talk) 15:10, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a vendetta. We just don't like spammers. --sciencewatcher (talk) 16:40, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Spam. He does appear to have received an MBE as noted in the argus article, so he's done some good community work along the line. But that doesn't make him notable. Szzuk (talk) 19:50, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ANYBIO. My understanding is that there are way, way too many Members of the Order of the British Empire for "MBE" to be notable for Wikipedia purposes. Richwales (talk · contribs) 01:50, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ANYBIO. Also, we don't like spammers. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:16, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The post by IP address 109.153.45.0 on 4th August made completely clear that the MBE award, although could be seen as justification for the entry, is coincidental - The subject's clearly had a very high profile for several years and the entry was online long before the MBE was awarded (and no one disputed it then). Also, 10 people out of a database of 360,000 considering an email spam does seem like a very low number (possibly below average for an opt-in list?) So I have to echo the commenter's question on 5th August: "I wonder what is really behind anonymous Vendettas like this...?" --135.196.50.125 (talk) 13:24, 9 August 2011 (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.