Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arthur Kemp


 * 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 keep.  The Nordic Goddess Kristen  Worship her 00:56, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Arthur Kemp

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This article is simply an advert and an apologia for a non-notable figure. The only way he could deserve a mention is in relation to Hani and Darby-Lewis, which is already being dealt with there. User:BillMasen 14:26, 9 January 2009


 * Not so. The article WAS well-sourced, accurate and described notability. The history of this page reveals that what has happened is that the subject of the article, Arthur Kemp, has himself set up a WIkipedia account in order to edit it in his own favour. (See warnings etc posted on User talk:Arthur Kemp.) The article does not need deleting; it needs reverting to some earlier version before Mr Kemp turned it into a self-serving autobiography. Keep. Emeraude (talk) 16:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

The original "article" was nothing but a politcally biased attack upon myself, quoting as "source" a series of unprovable, unsubstantiated allegations, all of which are outright lies. If the article is to be maintained, it is only fair that the lies and inaccuracies are removed.

As I have pointed out elsewhere, it is patently unfair to set up an entry on Wikipedia, make all sorts of defamatory allegations, and then when the subject calls the article into question, and puts in references refuting the lies, then that person's changes are rejected because "they are a point of view." What then, I may ask, was the original article, if not just that. Arthur Kemp (talk) 17:24, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * keep - Mr. Kemp appears to be a notable enough author and political activist. NPOV is not a reason for deletion.  fix the article, don't whine about losing an attack piece.  --Rocksanddirt (talk) 19:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * "losing an attack piece"? If I'm supposed to be the one who's whining, I don't even know what that means. BillMasen (talk) 19:30, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * oops. misread Emeraude's comments.  --Rocksanddirt (talk) 23:17, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep, though there's lots of problems with this article, it meets notability standards, and is simply in need of some serious cleanup. SDJ 19:25, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * neutral - I think that Mr. Kemp is notable, his Victory or violence: The story of the AWB was also published in Czech language. More serious problem was sourcing by unreliable defamatory sources like Southern Poverty Law Center, Searchlight (magazine) or some left wing blog called Lancaster Unity. --Dezidor (talk) 09:12, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

If the SPLC's outrageously false allegations against me are to be included, then it is only fair that my rebuttal of them also be included.


 * In this regard, I can show how the SPLC article about me on their own web site has been repeatedly edited by that organisation as one after another of their lies fall apart. For example, they originally claimed that I live and work from a spare bedroom of the National Alliance chairman's house in Ohio (in fact I live in Britain); that I spoke at the 2006 Barnes Review conference in Washington DC (I did not), that I spoke at a NDP meeting in Germany (I never have) and a whole list of other gross, serious and libellous factual errors, far too long to list individually here.
 * As each of these gross lies were exposed, the SPLC edited them out of their original article. Fortunately I kept screen shots of all of the versions.
 * Now, anyone who actually thinks that they are still a 'reliable' resource on anything, except their own invented lies, needs their head read.
 * As I have said before, if the SPLC's lies are to be allowed in, I must be given an equal opportunity to refute them. Otherwise the whole Wikipedia system of 'neutrality' will fall down.

Arthur Kemp (talk) 16:31, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Subject certainly appears to be notable, but article has many issues and has not necessarily been improved by many of the edits, may have to be carefully patrolled. Paste Talk 16:38, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The subject of the article seems to be notable enough, whatever the article is like. It's the subject that's at the centre of the discussion. As to the contents, probably a rewrite is desirable - by someone with no axe to grind. Either way. And with reliable sources - not personal or organisation websites or blogs, or personal knowledge with no backup outside. Peridon (talk) 17:17, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions.   --  brew  crewer  (yada, yada) 18:35, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.   --  brew  crewer  (yada, yada) 18:35, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions.   --  brew  crewer  (yada, yada) 18:35, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: If this article is kept, it needs serious work, neutral editors, and a careful watch. The fact that the subject is an activist in a extreme right political party, is editing his own article, and accusing (along with other Wikipedia editors here) two of the most prominent, mainstream anti-hate groups in the Anglophone world -- the Southern Poverty Law Center and Searchlight (magazine) -- as "unreliable defamatory sources".  This concerns me greatly. T L Miles (talk) 03:14, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I was reminded of what Buddha said. "Hate can not end hate. Only love can end hate." Steve Dufour (talk) 13:23, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Definite KEEP to any "pre-User:ArthurKemp version.. and tell 'em that sometimes things are a lot better before he fixes them.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 03:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep He is a notable person. The article is not so bad now. It will probably not be very good ever because people only edit it to push one agenda or the other. There is no interest in telling his story to inform readers. But that is life on WP. Steve Dufour (talk) 13:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * 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.