The result was no consensus. Once comments made by obvious single-purpose accounts have been excluded, there is broad consensus that the subject of the article does not meet the various specific notability guidelines, but no real consensus on what particular specific notability guidelines actually apply. In addition, the question of whether GNG applies was raised but not properly discussed. Given the long history of issues that this article has had, I will be referring it to the BLP noticeboard so a fresh pair of uninvolved eyes can check whether it is still in adherence to Wikipedia's BLP policies, specifically with regards to COATRACK issues. — Tom Morris ( talk) 22:11, 24 May 2012 (UTC) reply
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
User:TheFallenCrowd tried to AFD this but instead overwrote a previous nomination. Their rationale is below.
The subject meets none of the notability criteria as demanded by Wikipedia
1. The subject was a minor unelected official in a minor political party which obtained less than 1.9% of the vote.
2. According to the WP:POLITICIAN notablity guidelines, the subject must meet the following criteria:
Politicians and judges who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office, and members or former members of a national, state or provincial legislature. This will also apply to those who have been elected but not yet sworn into such offices.
Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage.
Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article".
3. The subject has clearly not achieved any of these criteria, and thus lacks notability on Wikipedia.
"Wikipedia is not news, or an indiscriminate collection of information. Being in the news does not in itself mean that someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article. We should generally avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met:
• If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event.
• If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view. In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article.
• It is not the case that the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial and well-documented—as in the case of John Hinckley, Jr., who shot President Ronald Reagan in 1981.
The significance of an event or individual is indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources. It is important for editors to understand two clear differentiations of WP:BIO1E when compared to WP:BLP1E. Firstly, WP:BLP1E should be applied only to biographies of living people. Secondly, WP:BLP1E should be applied only to biographies of low-profile individuals.
In addition, some subject specific notability guidelines such as Wikipedia:Notability (sports) provide criteria that may support the notability of certain individuals who are known chiefly for one event."
Thus by Wikipedia's own guidelines, the subject does not qualify for notability based on one self-published book. TheFallenCrowd ( talk) 11:56, 18 May 2012 (UTC) reply
Delete - Subject not notable as per wiki criteria Rtaitm ( talk) 12:00, 18 May 2012 (UTC) reply
1. There is no notability for being a member of the BNP. Kemp was not an elected official, ever stood for public office, or held any position of national importance. As stated above, Wikipedia does NOT have articles on junior web editors of any other party. As a result, there is zero notability under WP:POLITICIAN.
2. Writing a book is only notable under Wiki guidelines as spelled out in WP:AUTHOR which are worth repeating once again, for DoctorKubla's sake:
""Creative professionals Scientists, academics, economists, professors, authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, engineers, and other creative professionals:
"The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.
"The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.
"The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
"The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums."
Nothing Kemp has written falls into any of those categories, and it is far fetched to even claim that he qualifies for notability under that category.
3. Being a witness in a trial is only notable, according to WP:SINGLEEVENT "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate. The assassins of major political leaders, such as Gavrilo Princip, fit into this category."
Kemp was one of many witnesses in the 1993 Hani trial (about which there is already a Wiki article) and was in reality a minor witness. Other witnesses--such as the eyewitness to the assassination, the people who stole and provided the firearm used, the people who provided the silencer and many others--do not have Wikipedia articles devoted to them.
There is, therefore, zero justification for this article: Kemp fails all notability tests in every single category. We should be guided by the principles of Wikipedia, not personal likes or dislikes. Kemp is simply not notable by established Wikipedia standards and the article should obviously be deleted. TheFallenCrowd ( talk) 13:51, 21 May 2012 (UTC) reply
Single Purpose, Single Edit Accounts:
Galtonion (
talk ·
contribs),
Tachwyr (
talk ·
contribs),
Yaabbly (
talk ·
contribs),
DavidAllan1 (
talk ·
contribs),
Boerboel1 (
talk ·
contribs).
Historystudent845 (
talk ·
contribs),
Bloomingnicely (
talk ·
contribs)
Single Purpose Accounts:
Rtaitm (
talk ·
contribs)
Accounts only active on articles about right wing (ex-)South Africans:
Schreiberstuhl (
talk ·
contribs),
TheFallenCrowd (
talk ·
contribs),.
To me, it looks like an orchestrated effort to remove an article of a South-African, fallen foul in his original country. Night of the Big Wind talk 12:17, 23 May 2012 (UTC) reply
This article’s opening paragraph reads as follows:
“Arthur Benjamin Kemp (born September 14, 1962) is a prominent British white separatist, writer, speaker, activist and political figure who has been the Foreign Affairs Spokesperson for the British National Party and was responsible for the content of that party's website. He was born in Southern Rhodesia and worked as a journalist in South Africa before moving to the United Kingdom. His most noted works are March of the Titans: a History of the White Race and Victory or Violence: the Story of the AWB.”
This opening paragraph provides the core of the reason why this article should be deleted.
A. The article claims that the subject is a “political figure” who has been in the BNP and was responsible for that party’s website. Ergo, this article claims that the subject is notable for being a politician.
According to the Wikipedia guide to notability for politicians, WP:POLITICIAN, a politician must fulfill the following requirements for notability:
1. Politicians and judges who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office, and members or former members of a national, state or provincial legislature. This will also apply to those who have been elected but not yet sworn into such offices.
2. Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage.
3. Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article".
Kemp has fulfilled NONE of these criteria, and, as users above have readily agreed, fails all notability tests for the political figure category.
B. The article then claims that the subject is a “journalist” and “author” who has written books.
According to the Wikipedia guide to notability as a journalist and writer WP:AUTHOR, a person must fulfil the following criteria for notability:
“Creative professionals
“Scientists, academics, economists, professors, authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, engineers, and other creative professionals:
“The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.
“The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.
“The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
“The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums."
Once again, it is obvious that the subject of this article has not fulfilled a single one of these criteria.
As a result, there are no grounds for notability in Wikipedia at all.
One user suggested that Kemp’s minor role in the Chris Hani Trial made him notable.
Wikipedia guidelines state that being a witness in a trial is only notable, according to WP:SINGLEEVENT
"If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate. The assassins of major political leaders, such as Gavrilo Princip, fit into this category."
Kemp’s appearance as a witness in that trial was minor, and one of many. Far more important witnesses testified, as outlined above, and therefore there are no grounds for notability here either, especially given the fact that there already is an article on the Hani trial.
In conclusion then, the evidence is clear and incontrovertible: this article fails every single one of Wikipedia’s notability tests and should be deleted forthwith. TheFallenCrowd ( talk) 23:27, 23 May 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Once comments made by obvious single-purpose accounts have been excluded, there is broad consensus that the subject of the article does not meet the various specific notability guidelines, but no real consensus on what particular specific notability guidelines actually apply. In addition, the question of whether GNG applies was raised but not properly discussed. Given the long history of issues that this article has had, I will be referring it to the BLP noticeboard so a fresh pair of uninvolved eyes can check whether it is still in adherence to Wikipedia's BLP policies, specifically with regards to COATRACK issues. — Tom Morris ( talk) 22:11, 24 May 2012 (UTC) reply
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
User:TheFallenCrowd tried to AFD this but instead overwrote a previous nomination. Their rationale is below.
The subject meets none of the notability criteria as demanded by Wikipedia
1. The subject was a minor unelected official in a minor political party which obtained less than 1.9% of the vote.
2. According to the WP:POLITICIAN notablity guidelines, the subject must meet the following criteria:
Politicians and judges who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office, and members or former members of a national, state or provincial legislature. This will also apply to those who have been elected but not yet sworn into such offices.
Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage.
Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article".
3. The subject has clearly not achieved any of these criteria, and thus lacks notability on Wikipedia.
"Wikipedia is not news, or an indiscriminate collection of information. Being in the news does not in itself mean that someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article. We should generally avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met:
• If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event.
• If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view. In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article.
• It is not the case that the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial and well-documented—as in the case of John Hinckley, Jr., who shot President Ronald Reagan in 1981.
The significance of an event or individual is indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources. It is important for editors to understand two clear differentiations of WP:BIO1E when compared to WP:BLP1E. Firstly, WP:BLP1E should be applied only to biographies of living people. Secondly, WP:BLP1E should be applied only to biographies of low-profile individuals.
In addition, some subject specific notability guidelines such as Wikipedia:Notability (sports) provide criteria that may support the notability of certain individuals who are known chiefly for one event."
Thus by Wikipedia's own guidelines, the subject does not qualify for notability based on one self-published book. TheFallenCrowd ( talk) 11:56, 18 May 2012 (UTC) reply
Delete - Subject not notable as per wiki criteria Rtaitm ( talk) 12:00, 18 May 2012 (UTC) reply
1. There is no notability for being a member of the BNP. Kemp was not an elected official, ever stood for public office, or held any position of national importance. As stated above, Wikipedia does NOT have articles on junior web editors of any other party. As a result, there is zero notability under WP:POLITICIAN.
2. Writing a book is only notable under Wiki guidelines as spelled out in WP:AUTHOR which are worth repeating once again, for DoctorKubla's sake:
""Creative professionals Scientists, academics, economists, professors, authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, engineers, and other creative professionals:
"The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.
"The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.
"The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
"The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums."
Nothing Kemp has written falls into any of those categories, and it is far fetched to even claim that he qualifies for notability under that category.
3. Being a witness in a trial is only notable, according to WP:SINGLEEVENT "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate. The assassins of major political leaders, such as Gavrilo Princip, fit into this category."
Kemp was one of many witnesses in the 1993 Hani trial (about which there is already a Wiki article) and was in reality a minor witness. Other witnesses--such as the eyewitness to the assassination, the people who stole and provided the firearm used, the people who provided the silencer and many others--do not have Wikipedia articles devoted to them.
There is, therefore, zero justification for this article: Kemp fails all notability tests in every single category. We should be guided by the principles of Wikipedia, not personal likes or dislikes. Kemp is simply not notable by established Wikipedia standards and the article should obviously be deleted. TheFallenCrowd ( talk) 13:51, 21 May 2012 (UTC) reply
Single Purpose, Single Edit Accounts:
Galtonion (
talk ·
contribs),
Tachwyr (
talk ·
contribs),
Yaabbly (
talk ·
contribs),
DavidAllan1 (
talk ·
contribs),
Boerboel1 (
talk ·
contribs).
Historystudent845 (
talk ·
contribs),
Bloomingnicely (
talk ·
contribs)
Single Purpose Accounts:
Rtaitm (
talk ·
contribs)
Accounts only active on articles about right wing (ex-)South Africans:
Schreiberstuhl (
talk ·
contribs),
TheFallenCrowd (
talk ·
contribs),.
To me, it looks like an orchestrated effort to remove an article of a South-African, fallen foul in his original country. Night of the Big Wind talk 12:17, 23 May 2012 (UTC) reply
This article’s opening paragraph reads as follows:
“Arthur Benjamin Kemp (born September 14, 1962) is a prominent British white separatist, writer, speaker, activist and political figure who has been the Foreign Affairs Spokesperson for the British National Party and was responsible for the content of that party's website. He was born in Southern Rhodesia and worked as a journalist in South Africa before moving to the United Kingdom. His most noted works are March of the Titans: a History of the White Race and Victory or Violence: the Story of the AWB.”
This opening paragraph provides the core of the reason why this article should be deleted.
A. The article claims that the subject is a “political figure” who has been in the BNP and was responsible for that party’s website. Ergo, this article claims that the subject is notable for being a politician.
According to the Wikipedia guide to notability for politicians, WP:POLITICIAN, a politician must fulfill the following requirements for notability:
1. Politicians and judges who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office, and members or former members of a national, state or provincial legislature. This will also apply to those who have been elected but not yet sworn into such offices.
2. Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage.
3. Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article".
Kemp has fulfilled NONE of these criteria, and, as users above have readily agreed, fails all notability tests for the political figure category.
B. The article then claims that the subject is a “journalist” and “author” who has written books.
According to the Wikipedia guide to notability as a journalist and writer WP:AUTHOR, a person must fulfil the following criteria for notability:
“Creative professionals
“Scientists, academics, economists, professors, authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, engineers, and other creative professionals:
“The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.
“The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.
“The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
“The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums."
Once again, it is obvious that the subject of this article has not fulfilled a single one of these criteria.
As a result, there are no grounds for notability in Wikipedia at all.
One user suggested that Kemp’s minor role in the Chris Hani Trial made him notable.
Wikipedia guidelines state that being a witness in a trial is only notable, according to WP:SINGLEEVENT
"If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate. The assassins of major political leaders, such as Gavrilo Princip, fit into this category."
Kemp’s appearance as a witness in that trial was minor, and one of many. Far more important witnesses testified, as outlined above, and therefore there are no grounds for notability here either, especially given the fact that there already is an article on the Hani trial.
In conclusion then, the evidence is clear and incontrovertible: this article fails every single one of Wikipedia’s notability tests and should be deleted forthwith. TheFallenCrowd ( talk) 23:27, 23 May 2012 (UTC) reply