Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tony Magrathea

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 was delete. Davewild (talk) 06:50, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Magrathea[edit]

Tony Magrathea (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BIO Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:45, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

why is this set down for deletion>: it is a true and frank piece about a man trying to overthrow a government with a keyboard. Who decided this was to be deleted? was it the same people protecting the editing of Tony Abbotts page? The paid editors who are operating against Wikis rules?

The man Tony Magrathea is legitimate, is a writer, is well known in political circles. why delete the article/ who decided it was to be deleted and what relationship do they have to the liberal party of Australia and tony Abbott?Are they some of hte people being paid $4.3 million to control social media including wiki for tony Abbott? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.150.122.71 (talk) 03:53, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arcobelina (talk) 04:01, 29 March 2015 (UTC) up to 600,000 people tweet,retweet and retweet again my hobby of overthrowing the government. The petition with 27,000 signatures on it was created because of my research, [1] this has many links to the stories discussing what I am doing, the matter has been in the news in Russia, UK, Ireland,USA, Australia [2] and that was only up until September 2014, many more newspaper stories have happened since then about Tony Magrathea and his questArcobelina (talk) 04:01, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Magrathea[3] has more links to other stories about Tony Magrathea Arcobelina (talk) 04:02, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your rules " A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." [4]

  1. ^ https://www.change.org/p/tony-abbott-show-us-your-papers-renouncing-your-british-citizenship-before-you-were-elected
  2. ^ http://tonymagrathea.blogspot.com.au/2014/09/an-email-to-attorney-general.html
  3. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Magrathea
  4. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_%28people%29

Some of the external references are here:- please let me know if you need more

And the Guardian sent a knock knock joke writer to make light of the story, they refuse to publish my response to it. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/09/show-us-your-citizenship-why-the-tony-abbott-birthers-want-to-believe

So many people have signed their name to a process Tony Magrathea is basically running, they need the wiki entry as some central point to keep up to date and to watch what is happening. 27,000 signed the petition [1] and many watch the blog which has so much more information than the short wiki entry [2]Arcobelina (talk) 04:21, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-09-16/wyeth-the-birther-barrier-is-holding-parliament-back/5744556
  2. ^ http://tonymagrathea.blogspot.com.au/

If wiki allows this page to stay how do I protect it from attack by Abbotistas?The paid help who protect social media and wikipedia for tony Abbott? He has publicly said he will spend $4.3 million dollars this year to control social media. can the page be a locked or semi locked page to protect from edit?Arcobelina (talk) 04:30, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Attempting to remove this article is why Wiki is discredited in Universities and not allowed as serious documentation. And yet there are thousands of pages of undocumented opinion and creative writing on plots etc of Movies, TV shows. And why many serious people no longer bother to login to edit any more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.202.187.140 (talk) 00:14, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment You know what? Some of the sources provided by Arcobelina was not half bad, especially the Daily Mail one. However I am also seeing a hint of WP:BLP1E, not warranting an article for him. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 08:13, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:35, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:35, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP1E, WP:TNT and WP:COATRACK. This is an article about this person's quixotic campaign, not him, and there's no evidence of notability. Nick-D (talk) 08:04, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A quixotic campaign about the law? There are no windmills in this, it is purely fact. A freedom of information document from the Prime Minsters own department, constitutional law? Hardly quixotic. Are you one of the paid social media censors employed by Abbott?Arcobelina (talk) 06:58, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Um, no. Nick-D (talk) 00:43, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the sources are rubbish or merely referencing various regulations, opinions on citizenship and the like. The subject is not notable. Having some sort of vendetta against the Prime Minister is par for the course here, regardless of what party is in power. I'm personally against his treatment of onions. --Pete (talk) 08:41, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

daily Mail is rubbish? Pravda? channel 9 in Austral, largest free to air TV network? Sydney Morning Herald,? Do you read much skyring? have you read the links? did you bother or is it you membership of the Abbott party coming through? Citizenship requirements are part of the Australian constitution,again if you had read you might have noticed? It isnt a regulation it is a law. Imaging an American saying the 1st amendment is rubbish? Arcobelina (talk) 06:58, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've indented this statement so it doesn't link on to the back of Skyring's statement. Other than that I've made no changes. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:28, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say they were all rubbish, did I? Magrathea's involvement in the news stories looks very tangential. The Daily Mail article is about a Labor MP - Magrathea is merely "a blogger" who emailed the MP. Magrathea doesn't even get a mention in the SMH cite. Or Skynews. The Pravda cite is just a comment from Magrathea. As was made clear during the Heather Hill case and its aftermath - and yes, I sat in on the High Court case, so I'm familiar with the citizenship requirements - if a person does not want to disclose exactly when they renounced any foreign citizenship there is nobody going to compel them. Abbott says he is not a British citizen and that's the end to it.
Magrathea is just stirring the pot. There is nothing notable about him apart from his tub-thumping. He appears to be using Wikipedia to wheel his barrow a little further. --Pete (talk) 08:48, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We're dealing with a BLP here. I have removed all unsourced material, that supported by blogs or other unreliable sources, primary sources and material supported by sources dealing solely with the Prime Minister or citizenship requirements and the like which do not specifically mention Magrathea. There was also a good deal of editorialising, synthesis and personal opinion. What is left is material which can be adequately sourced. If anybody wishes to reinsert material, please check Wikipedia's sourcing requirements first, especially for biographies of living people. --Pete (talk) 09:19, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete None of the sources contain significant coverage of Mr Magrathea himself. Completely fails our basic criteria of "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:40, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You say the article must not be blanked but Skyring and Wordseventeen have deleted 97% of it. is this the way wiki operates now? Arcobelina (talk) 00:28, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In accordance with policy. I urge you to read up on Biographies of living people and sourcing policy. You may also wish to read WP:AUTO.
May I also direct you to WP:FA, which contains information about the best articles on Wikipedia. These are articles which exemplify the standard we aim for. These articles do not feature inadequate sources, speculation, bias and original research. My edits were intended to improve the article in accordance with policy, but I couldn't find much material to push it up to the highest possible standard. Maybe this is as good as it gets.
If you really want to keep this article, find some sources where the subject is widely talked about. Dedicated newspaper articles, bodies of award-winning work, citations for gallantry - the sort of things that divide notable people from the rest of humanity.
It seems to me that the thrust of the article, as written, was less about the subject and more about Tony Abbott. My feeling is that you may well be right, and Abbott was originally elected while still retaining British citizenship. As were many other politicians at that time, because it had never occurred to anybody to regard the UK as "a foreign power". However, with Sue vs Hill, this all changed and there was a scramble (so I'm told) by politicians to renounce various inconvenient citizenships. Abbott has almost certainly renounced whatever British citizenship he might have had, and if it turns out that he hadn't when he was first elected, what are you going to do? Can't declare that a term already served didn't happen. You'd have to take it all the way to the High Court and they'd likely shrug their shoulders and say there's no practical remedy. There is nobody can force him to reveal if or when he renounced his citizenship. It's not a crime, the police couldn't care, and it's all just a stunt. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for stunts. I might also point out that Tony Abbott supported Terry Sharples in Sue vs Hill and would have been very much aware of the significance and dangers of hlding dual citizenship. --Pete (talk) 01:24, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 02:48, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:38, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's unclear to me how two consecutive closers could possibly think there was no consensus to delete, given the above, but I suppose the wheels of bureaucracy grind slow. This article is an autobiography created by a single-purpose account. Magrathea is a conspiracy blogger who has used his blog and Twitter account to insult Wikipedia editors ("Abbottista wankers" being my favourite in the series) and accuse them of paid editing (off-wiki harassment being, of course, grounds for a block). Off-topic: I would suggest further all the above, taken with his edit-warring and consistent confrontational behaviour, would be grounds for an indef block, but I can't be bothered chasing that further just yet. This is obviously a deletion discussion, not an admin noticeboard, so my rationale for deletion is that Magrathea has had no significant coverage in reliable sources, only very brief mentions. A (non-autobiographical) article could be written if he or his campaign gain more coverage. IgnorantArmies (talk) 07:14, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the coverage that exists is WP:1E. Boleyn (talk) 07:56, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and revert, block, ignore. This is nowhere close to the notability of Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories. On a side note, I agree with IgnorantArmies about the relisting. Tigraan (talk) 12:19, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Classic example of BLP1E. –Davey2010Talk 14:51, 14 April 2015 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tony_Magrathea&oldid=1138878831"