| Revision as of 17:13, 20 June 2006 editTheoldanarchist (talk | contribs)8,298 edits →[]← Previous edit | Revision as of 17:35, 20 June 2006 edit undoEdchilvers (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,625 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
| * '''Keep''' prominent Tory convicted of fraud against his employer (a health authority). We kept it even when it was a hagiography of no evident interest, now it is a much better article why should we turn round and delete it? ] 15:23, 20 June 2006 (UTC) | * '''Keep''' prominent Tory convicted of fraud against his employer (a health authority). We kept it even when it was a hagiography of no evident interest, now it is a much better article why should we turn round and delete it? ] 15:23, 20 June 2006 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Keep'''. No valid reason is given for deletion, and the motives of ] are highly suspect. I do not know that the individual named is all that highly notable, but he is of minor interest in the field of British politics---especially of its largely irrelevant royalist right-wing. Keep and protect per ]. ---] 17:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC) | *'''Keep'''. No valid reason is given for deletion, and the motives of ] are highly suspect. I do not know that the individual named is all that highly notable, but he is of minor interest in the field of British politics---especially of its largely irrelevant royalist right-wing. Keep and protect per ]. ---] 17:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC) | ||
| ==Important== | |||
| I must tell you all that I today recieved a letter from Gillespie MacAndrew solicitors threatening me with civil action under scottish law unless references to Mr Lauder Frosts criminal convictions are expunged. Should you require further information please email me at lordcurlyton@yahoo.com | |||
| ] | |||
Revision as of 17:35, 20 June 2006
Gregory Lauder-Frost
This article has been decimated and demonised and should now be removed. Originally contributed to by over 60 different editors, over 6 months, it was originally 7.5 printed A4 pages long. It has now lost all proper relevance. Sussexman 06:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
- See Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Gregory Lauder-Frost (2nd nomination)Homey 15:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
- Nonsense. The article is much improved now that it is free of all the irrelevant information such as ancestry and letters to newspapers etc. It gives a much clearer and consise version of who GLF is. User:Edchilvers.
- Keep; minor but IMO notable political figure from the far right of the Conservative Party. That his friends and supporters are now unhappy with the article merely shows that it's now a bit more NPOV. And 60 editors? Only if you believe every IP editor was a different person despite the obvious closely related IP ranges. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 07:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Don't see how he is not notable. What does 7.5 pages mean? ~ trialsanderrors 07:28, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Don't understand reason for deletion. -- Samir धर्म 07:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
- It means it's not the hagiography Lauder-Frost has been working diligently into making it. See here for his latest rebuff. --Calton | Talk 08:09, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. This nomination is misconceived—it's the result of a long edit war over the content of the Gregory Lauder-Frost article; see the talk page. Spacepotato 08:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Minor but enough. --Calton | Talk 08:09, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. The article is much better now that it has been cleaned up Endomorph
- Keep The article is alright as it is. Maybe it should actually be locked. Williamb 11:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. Yes, it should be kept and locked. But it should be kept in the form of the consensually agreed version which we had prior to Sussexman's latest bout of vandalisation.Endomorph
- Keep "Vanity article or bust" isn't our policy. Homey 15:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep prominent Tory convicted of fraud against his employer (a health authority). We kept it even when it was a hagiography of no evident interest, now it is a much better article why should we turn round and delete it? Just zis Guy you know? 15:23, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. No valid reason is given for deletion, and the motives of Sussexman are highly suspect. I do not know that the individual named is all that highly notable, but he is of minor interest in the field of British politics---especially of its largely irrelevant royalist right-wing. Keep and protect per Endomorph. ---Charles 17:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Important
I must tell you all that I today recieved a letter from Gillespie MacAndrew solicitors threatening me with civil action under scottish law unless references to Mr Lauder Frosts criminal convictions are expunged. Should you require further information please email me at lordcurlyton@yahoo.com User:Edchilvers