Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:53, 8 June 2006

Gregory Lauder-Frost

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 Misplaced Pages contributors. Misplaced Pages 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}}.

Vanity article by marginal fringe figure and/or his friends. See also Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Gregory_Lauder-Frost. Homey 02:00, 4 June 2006 (UTC).

• You forgot to say this was your opinion.Lightoftheworld 16:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete.Marginal extreme of right figure not of any political note in modern politics.211.48.25.2 13:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC)218.152.126.38 13:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment.: Gregory Lauder Frost is advertising to get a small army together to save his wikipedia entry, how sad is that? CDA Yahoo218.152.126.38 13:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC).

• • Evidence please. Sussexman 07:53, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• I'm going to vote keep. The article has been allowed to fall into a state of disrepair, with GLF and his friends adding a disturbing amount of trivia, dubious assertions and unverifiable original research. There's little question that much of the current piece is vanity, and should either be deleted or significantly truncated. Notwithstanding this, Lauder-Frost is a public figure (of sorts) in the United Kingdom: he once held a leadership position in a fringe organization, and has been cited in the mainstream media numerous times. This article is in desperate need of revision, but the subject is above the threshold of notability in my eyes (unfortunately). CJCurrie 02:42, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep but Rewrite/drastic cutting down Marginally notable, but article needs major rewrite and editing out of non-notable detail Bwithh 03:37, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: long-winded vanity article about irrelevant maggiphile. NN POV. --die Baumfabrik 04:03, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I read through that whole thing, and it took about five minutes (and I read fast) to figure out that he sat on many comittees and been to many dinners, but he's done nothing of encyclopedic value. Teke 06:38, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep He is a significant enough figure in the British political scene who is commonly interviewed on British news programs on controversial political and monarchy issues. Ben W Bell talk 07:13, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Nothing wrong with this article. I strongly disagree with Lauder-Frost's politics myself, but he is politically important and significant. I cannot help thinking that Homey is bringing his/her politics into Misplaced Pages far too much. RobinCarmody
  • The above was actually posted by an Anon IP. "RobinCarmody" has not posted in Misplaced Pages since February. Homey 09:27, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Both postings were me; I just didn't log in. RobinCarmody
• Incidentally, Baumfabrik, though I hold no brief for GLF, he is not a "maggiphile" if by that you mean a fanatical admirer of Margaret Thatcher - he is a different kind of conservative. On the Conservative Democratic Alliance's web forum, he (ironically, considering his fervent anti-Communism) expressed admiration for the Soviet Union's blocking of Western TV signals and suggested that we in Britain should do the same thing with American-style satellite channels. An ultra-Thatcherite would no more say that than express admiration for Arthur Scargill. RobinCarmody
  • The above was actually posted by an Anon IP. "RobinCarmody" has not posted in Misplaced Pages since February. Homey 09:27, 4 June 2006 (UTC).
• So what? Lightoftheworld 16:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, it does seem to meet Misplaced Pages:Notability_(people), but needs some serious chopping down. - Motor (talk) 09:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, subject is mentioned in enough non-trivial works to meet WP:V and certainly seems notable enough. Needs a subject expert to be WP:BOLD in cutting this down - Peripitus 11:29, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Notable British politician Fred Bauder 12:19, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, notable enough for WP:BIO --Nearly Headless Nick 14:01, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete: Certain parties who have admitted to being personal aquaintances of Mr Lauder Frost have been rushing to defend this article like its the Ark of the Covenant. Even minor edits have been torn down straight away and the editor subjected to a volley of abuse and accusations of 'vandalism.' This alone should demonstrate the impossibily of maintaining its objectivity.

User:Edchilvers.

• Much of what you've said is here is untrue. Over 60 users have edited this article. Supporters of GLF, just like supporters of Karl Marx, are, hopefully, still individuals. Lightoftheworld 16:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: vanity. A genealogist and accountant who, 15 years ago, held a couple of positions within one British fringe political organisation (with fewer than 600 members) and held an honorary post in another; resigned after being accused of cheque fraud, and rejoined a couple of years ago. Lauder-Frost is an untiring self-publicist, contributing to Misplaced Pages under a number of names, but he is politically unimportant, and I do not believe he meets WP:BIO. He has never held local or national political office. No BBC news programme appears to have interviewed him since 1992 . While I note Peripitus' and CJCurrie's points about non-trivial works, the press coverage cited in the article is almost entirely self-generated in the form of letters to the press. GLF gains 1420 G-hits, but once again they all seem to be either Wiki mirrors or self-penned postings to various blogs, forums and genealogy web pages. This isn't a notable individual - it's an individual desperate to appear notable. Humansdorpie 14:51, 4 June 2006 (UTC).

• Please get it right. When he resigned t=from the Monday Club, the leading Tory pressure group int he UK at the time, it had over 1600 members of the National Club plus those in the branches. Lightoftheworld 16:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment:I have commented on the Talk Pages, all ignored and abused. But points in the above need comment. Lauder-Frost resigned from the Monday Club (at the time had 1660 members and about 45 members of both houses of parliament) before any arrest or charges were brought. He has appeared in several news interviews in the past decade. As for letters to the editor, these equate to a public statement by the individual. If in a political position they carry importance. As for friends/supporters of GLF supporting his entry, how does that differ from this concerted attempt by similar politically-minded friends on Misplaced Pages ganging together to destroy it? Sussexman 06:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• CommentBased on the length of the article one would think Gregory Lauder-Frost is the most important person in UK politics today and one of the most important people who has ever lived. The article is mostly filler of little interest to anyone outside of Lauder-Frost's immediate circle and while Misplaced Pages is not paper I guarantee you that no one but a vanity publisher would ever put this article in print. Editors who were banned by the ArbComm from this article have been flouting the ban by editing as anon IPs from a dynamic ISP and a circle of Lauder-Frost's friends and supporters have expanded this article to excruciating lengths and are tenacious in defending the inclusion of the most trivial of details such as who attended what dinner. The only surprise is that they have not (yet) posted the menus on the rationale that they give the reader a sense of the importance and dignity of the occasions. The article is unencyclopedic in its length and content. Homey 14:53, 4 June 2006 (UTC).

• Comment:This comment has been lifted straight from the Talk Page. I don't see this as a vanity article but as a catalogue which gives us a political biography of the subject over a considerable period. Sussexman 06:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, notable politician and meets WP:BIO criteria. However, sources should be cited. --Terence Ong 16:28, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Ed Chilvers sees himself as a political opponent of Lauder-Frost, and his comments are therefore biased and made in bad faith. The sneering sarcasm of Homey indicates that he/she is unfit to act as an impartial administrator of English Misplaced Pages.Mike Keith Smith 16:46, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • No edits before today. Homey 17:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC).
• So what? Is the fellow not entitled to say anything? Lightoftheworld 16:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Thats rubbish. I in no way see myself as being a political opponant of Mr Lauder Frost. I know little about his activities, have never met him and nor, to my knowlege, have I ever had any contact with him whatsoever. As for Mr Lauder Frost himself I doubt if he even knows of my existance. User:Edchilvers

• • Nor have you ever met me, but that has not prevented you from posting hundreds of abusive posts on numerous internet sites. Moreover, you are well aware that Gregory Lauder-Frost is a longstanding political colleague of mine.

In order to demonstrate that you are motivated purely by concern for the welfare of Misplaced Pages, would you care to tell us which other Misplaced Pages entries you have asked to be deleted (following previous vandalism)?Mike Keith Smith 19:26, 4 June 2006 (UTC).

• Delete egregious puffery of someone whose significance to anyone other than his close associates remains to be demonstrated. Scores about half as many ghits as I do (and I am my own benchmark for non-notability); excluding WP and mirrors removes about a third of them, which is never a good sign. I am unclear which part(s) of WP:BIO this person is supposed to meet. Just zis Guy you know? 20:02, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: vanity article which seems to be primarily maintained by political allies (friends?) of Lauder-Frost. - Christopher Lame 20:12, 4 June 2006 (UTC).

• • Not that the endless articles and biographies of Marxists etc., have not been created by their followers, eh? Lightoftheworld 16:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete: no discernible political achievements, or significant body of independently reviewed and published work. --Stephen Burnett 21:06, 4 June 2006 (UTC). New User, probably a sock-puppet. 81.131.91.205 13:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per User:CJCurrie and User:Ben W Bell; fringe but notable enough to meet WP:BIO, however content needs editing with a flamethrower. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:57, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment Ain't that the truth, it should stay but needs a severe haircut and tidy. Ben W Bell talk 07:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete This is a largely self-promotional piece. An exercise in vanity. (— Preceding unsigned comment added by Endomorph (talk • contribs) )
• No signature. Lightoftheworld 16:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Marginal figure. Self-puffery tilts me to deletion. -- GWO
• Keep. Article needs cleanup, not deleting. David | Talk 10:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• 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 lol!!! Obvious that this politically-motivated poster is so busy attempting to trash the entries of sundry CDA members he has inadvertantly reposted word-for-word his attack on my Misplaced Pages entry. He hasn't even bothered to substitute Lauder-Frost's name for my own. Not difficult to see what is going on here. Mike Keith Smith 18:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• What has the CDA got to do with GLF's article - other than Homeontherange has got his teeth into that also?Lightoftheworld 16:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - conditional: that if reworked that is not carried out by declared opponents of either article or individual.

GLF was a very prominent figure on the respectable Tory Right. He consistantly supported the traditional wing of the Conservative Party (UK) and spoke out constantly for his beliefs. He was a principal officer and activist in the most prominent Tory pressure group ever. No (referring to comment above), he was not an MP (selection has been tightly controlled by liberals since the mid-1980s) but he did more for Toryism than any of the time-serving careerists who do absolutely nothing for conservatism.

Lets be absolutetly honest here. He/his article has been attacked almost from inception by the likes of CJCurrie and his friend Homeontherange, as well as GroundZero on every pretext they could possibly think of. Homeontherange tried before (December) to get this article deleted when it was a fraction of its present size. Now he is trying again. (He has also attacked just about everyone and every group with any association with GLF with the most self-righteous, cynical, and sarcastic comments imaginable). Homeontherange has now used as his principal arguments vanity/flattery and lack of sources. Yet when more sources were added following that complaint he deleted them anyway. (Please name me one article that displays as many sources as this biography?) As for the vanity/flattery bit I would argue its garbage because I cannot see anything there that is untrue: it is a political biography of a figure who was extremely active in his cause.

Now I understand that some of you may be Left-wing and see Lauder-Frost as 'the enemy'. That he may (have) been. But give him credit for supporting what he believed in, just as you do. Thiose interested in British politics will normally have heard of him. One further bonkers comment by the detractors: that of "anonymous" posters. You all know this is just yet another excuse to attack those you don't like. Please grow up. We are ALL anonymous. Calling yourself 'The Mummy' and flagging up a template saying you're a native English speaker tells us nothing. Get real and get decent. Misplaced Pages's policies, so many of you say, are "civility" and "good faith". I don't see that present in so many of the detractor's comments. Lightoftheworld 15:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment
• "Those interested in British politics will normally have heard of him." I'm sorry, but that statement is simply untrue, for the very good reason that he's never achieved anything - unless you count attending dinners, writing letters to newspapers and contributing to obscure periodicals which probably count themselves fortunate to have a circulation running into four figures. You just don't get it, do you? It's nothing to do with being left or right wing. To take an example - and I stress I am not comparing the two men in terms of their beliefs - I personally have a deep loathing of Nick Griffin and all he stands for, and in terms of the political process he's a nobody; I do believe however that there needs to be an article on him, because any survey of the British political and cultural landscape which leaves him out will be seriously deficient in explaining the events which affect anyone who lives in modern Britain. On that criterion, GLF is simply a nonentity. I realise he's important to his friends, as we all are; unfortunately that doesn't make him interesting to anyone else, and Misplaced Pages doesn't exist to provide a fan site for anyone. --Stephen Burnett 20:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC).

• Almost certainly this entirely new "Stephen Burnett" is a sock-puppet of one of the detractors. Of course everything Lightoftheworld has said is absolutely correct. GLF was very prominent in his day and he was a research assistant for John Biggs-Davison for two years at Westminster. He is well known. I once attended a meeting, about ten years ago, at which John Redwood was the speaker. During questions he sat and answered them, and looked totally disinterested. Then someone quoted GLF. Redwood's face actually lit up and he stood up, to answer with difficulty. This is not a fan mail from me but a statement of fact. Sussexman 07:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• • I notice from your user page that you claim to be a lawyer; perhaps, then, I ought to excuse you for having picked up a few dirty habits. Trying to discredit someone by slinging mud without a shred of evidence, in the hope that some of will stick, may be a well-established legal practice. It's less successful in an environment with more rigorous standards of debate, and a proper right to reply. As I have a user identity and a posting history going back 12 months, accessible at a click, it's not even very bright, as smear tactics go. Let's be charitable: perhaps you've misunderstood the term, and you simply use it to describe anyone who doesn't agree with you. Still, thanks to you we have yet another of GLF's great achievements to add to the record: the mention of his name once caused John Redwood to get off his backside. --Stephen Burnett 19:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC).

• • • Well, I've looked at the only page I can find for you and it looks absolutely brand spanking new in very sense of the word. I have not slung mud at anyone. Just stated a few home truths. Sussexman 07:53, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• • I'm not a sockpuppet. I am very interested in British Politics. I've never heard of you. -- GWO

• • • But are you 'Stephen Burnett'? 81.131.91.205 13:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. The org he belonged to is clearly notable, but I was unable to find enough substantial material to be sure he met WP:BIO. I've not worked on many bios before, though, so I'm very open to some non-partisan editor pointing out what they feel qualifies the article as a keep. --William Pietri 23:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete: It is clear that the combined effort of some Wikipedians to marginalise and demonise the traditional Right (as opposed to the BNP et al) is never going to leave articles of this nature alone. That way William Pietri's comment will always be applicable. Thats what they want. To be able to suppress such articles so they can say these people are "fringe". Past edits by people like Homeontherange in particular demonstrate almost evil malice with an intention to portray such individuals as GLF as positively over-the-hill fringe extremists which they were not (unless you were a left-wing journalist - as most are). So yes, get rid of it. Sussexman 07:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: from Misplaced Pages's own rules: Editors must take particular care when writing biographies of living persons, which require a degree of sensitivity. There are some editors on Wiklipedia who abuse this rule absolutely. Sussexman 08:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep: - on condition that a rewrite is not carried out by those who have voiced their loathing of individual/article as it stands. To show your magnaminity you might request Sussexman to attempt a rewrite and present it to someone for consideration. Whilst he has given his support to the article and individual, it would appear that he has virtually never contributed to the article. 81.131.91.205 12:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Having read the discussion above it seems clear to me that the proponents of deletion are largely politically motivated and are attempting to stifle historical facts of legitimate public interest. This is political censorship of the worst sort and it would be a disaster if Misplaced Pages were to allow it to succeed. The thin end of the wedge no less. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Milneg (talk • contribs) 14:38, June 6, 2006.

• • Really? Censorship? Of the worst kind? Or maybe it's just that not everybody is convinced of the notability of this character. People like me, a Briton with some interest in the politics of my country? As a rough guideline I have found that almost every article whose potential removal is denounced as "censorship" turns out to be worthless; arguments based on policy and guidelines cut slightly more ice. Which criteria of WP:BIO does this person meet? Just zis Guy you know? 15:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC).

• • Look. Don't get excited. If you don't like the article/subject call for its deletion. I could give you a list of "Britons with some interest in the politics of their country" many of whom would be communists. So thats a rather meaninless comment. 213.122.26.135 16:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Oh I'm not getting excited. If I were I would simply delete the article and protect against re-creation. We rouge admins love that kind of thing :-) Just zis Guy you know? 19:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep There is no reason to remove this item except for those with a political axe to grind213.78.75.17 15:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

LOL! Given that this article exists solely because of someone who has a political axe to grind, that is rich! Perhaps you could clarify precisely what is my political motivation here? Citing evidence, of course. Just zis Guy you know? 15:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC).

• • Is user 213.78 commenting upon you? I think not. 213.122.26.135 16:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep What next book burning ? --Gibnews

• Comment Closing admin might like to bear in mind that a Request for Arbitration in Jan 2006 found that someone purporting to be Gregory Lauder-Frost has a well-documented history of editing articles under a number of different account names, as well as anon ISPs in the range 213.122... and/or 81.131... Humansdorpie 15:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC).
  • (1) We are not dealing with Homeontherange's previous efforts to have this article deleted or his banning exercises. (2) 213.122 and 81.131 are standard British Telecom User ISPs. millions have them. (3) Can you apply yourself to the issue: article/content. Don't make a mountain out of a molehill. 213.122.26.135 16:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep: censorship sux, just cause someone doesn't like it, doesn't mean the rest should suffer —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.231.166.82 (talk • contribs) 17:49, 6 June 2006.

I resent the accusation of censorship. A number of visitors here appear to have personal motives, but I'm judging the article soley on the quality of the article, and I believe that to be the case for most Misplaced Pages editors. If you'd like this article to be preserved, improve it. --William Pietri 19:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• 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 comment was made by a user who only started editing wikipedia today. Homey 22:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: As with Michael Keith Smith this significant far-right figure is being subjected to malicious personal attack.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.134.225.131 (talk • contribs)
  • Unsigned comment above made by an anon IP that has only started editing Wkipedia today. Homey 21:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: What's wrong with the Right?

86.139.132.193 22:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep:Any reader of the respected British anti-Fascist periodical Searchlight knows that Lauder-Frost is one of the key players in the massive realignment that is taking place on the post-Cameron right. Leaving him our would be as ridiculous as deleting Nick Griffin or Sir Oswald Mosley. Seems that certain capitalist elements are desperate to hide the fact that the far right is alive and well and very much part of the system they uphold General Kongo 09:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

First edit was today. Homey13:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC).

• • So what? Sussexman 07:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Mosley and Griffin have widespread national name recognition, Lauder-Frost does not. Just zis Guy you know? 10:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. You can't just remove an entry because you don't like the man's politics or find him boring, at least not if you believe in deomocracy and a free press. If the entry is factually correct, it should stay. Edwin Hale 7 June 2006

• Only if he meets WP:BIO, if his freinds can bring themselves to allow it to be WP:NPOV, if the unverifiable and trivial is removed, if it adheres strictly to WP:BLP, and if someone can prove that anybody but his freinds would know him from a hole in the ground. Just zis Guy you know? 19:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• KeepThe article could do with a spot of subbing, but Lauder-Frost is someone who has done notable things62.56.69.250 11:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into Traditional Britain Group. Misplaced Pages is not myspace.com -- Karada
• Comment.: The sad thing is that he should find it necessary to call for support. The article about him is absolutely harmless, and those who are trying to delete it are doing so simply because they disagree with him. On this basis I would like to see the entries on the entire cabinet and all the shadow cabinet deleted - but I am not asking for that because I think somebody else might like the information. Edwin Hale, 7 June 2006.

• • Comment: the people attacking this article and its subject have a clearly demonstrated agenda. They now have the audacity to place at the top of this page a warning that although they can organise themselves to vote against the article, if anyone wished to come on board supporting it they don't like it. Classic Marxist stuff. A vocal opponent on GLF on these forums has now raised an unfortunate and distressing court action which went on for months nearly 15 years ago. It is illegal to do so under UK law; it is a deliberate attempt to publicly denigrate him world-wide. This will be injurious to his family, his children, his friends, not least himself, it is not relevant to 2006 and shows the depths to which such scum will sink raising it. 213.122.46.228 20:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Utter rubbish. GLF is not protected by the rehabilitation of offenders act and besides, the content of his Misplaced Pages article included a blatent falsehood in that it suggested he had been cleared of all charges on appeal. Seeing as the matter was widely reported in the national newspapers and has thus been in the public domain for some time I fail to see the harm in mentioning it as it is the truth.

User:Edchilvers.

• Comment: You're wrong Mr.Chilvers, as you will soon discover. Sussexman 07:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep--clearly an important and viable figure in UK prudent-immigration, repatriation, thought. Writing articles is just as important as being a minor political or establishment figure (in fact more so). Misplaced Pages has a duty to present facts about all facets of UK current responsible politial ideas. Attempts to suppress an obviously qualfied subject like Frost are clearly malicious and destructive. Atruelove 19:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • less than 50 editsHomey 22:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC).
  • So what? Sussexman 07:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Keep: GLF has at least as much a right to be in Misplaced Pages as many others. His record is interesting and perhaps shows why there is a leftist attempt to write him out of history (Stalin style and by fellow travellers).Regards BH. 66.222.88.90 02:53, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete: The original article has now been seriously vandalised, butchered, and seriously demonised, evern though it was protected so that voters could see the original article and decide for themselves. No prizes for guessing who has been at work. Sussexman 07:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)