Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arthur Kemp (3rd nomination)


 * 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   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)

Arthur Kemp
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

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.

Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:57, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


 * delete per nom. Mostly because they had too minor a role, not just because the party was minor. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:12, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 00:01, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 00:01, 18 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - Does not meet Wikipedia criteria. Subject was a minor, insignificant supporter of a small, failed political Party. Bloomingnicely (talk) 06:07, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete – Subject not notable as per wiki criteria Historystudent845 (talk) 06:58, 18 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - Subject not notable as per wiki criteria Yaabbly (talk) 07:10, 18 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - Subject not notable as per wiki criteria. Subject was a minor, insignificant sdupporter of what is now a minor, insignificant political party Tachwyr (talk) 11:00, 18 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - subject not notable as per wiki criteria. Subject was a supporter of an almost defunct and totally irrelevent minor political party Galtonion (talk) 11:46, 18 May 2012 (UTC)


 * '''Note: The prior five !votes are all from single-edit editors. Collect (talk) 11:48, 18 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Marginally notable for one book -- but current article is COATRACKish at best - so no objection to a deletion if someone makes a clean start on a real BLP here in the future either. Collect (talk) 11:48, 18 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - According to Wikipedia notability policy "Subjects notable for only one event" WP:BLP1E

"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)
 * His role in the South African murder trial would seem to be WP:BLP1E. But if he also has notability for the self-published book and/or his role in a minor political party (and I am not sure he does), then that would be WP:BLP2E (or even WP:BLP3E), which would not support deletion. Rlendog (talk) 21:10, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * His role in the Hani trial was minor, and, according to news reports and Wikipedia's own article of the event, insignificant when compared to the main players. I agree with Rlendog that this is clearly WP:BLP1E and not justifiable for a standalone article.
 * As discussed below, a self-published book and his minor role in a tiny political party is NOT notable, by Wiki's own standards. To reiterate the point: Wikipedia does NOT have an article about the author of every self-published and obscure book; and Wikipedia does NOT have an article about every tiny party's junior website editor. In fact, Wikipedia does not even have articles about the large parties' senior website editors, so there is absolutely no justification for one about an electorally insignificant party.
 * All of the facts therefore point overwhelmingly in favor of a deletion, by all established Wiki notability standards.TheFallenCrowd (talk) 23:05, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete - Subject not notable as per wiki criteria Rtaitm (talk) 12:00, 18 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - He fails WP:POLITICIAN, but not WP:GNG, which takes priority. He clearly does have significant coverage in reliable sources, which makes him notable. (Also, WP:BLP1E only applies to low-profile individuals, i.e. people who don't seek out media attention.) DoctorKubla (talk) 15:57, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Disagree. Subject had sporadic coverage as a minor official of a tiny, electorally unsuccessful party.


 * Even that was distorted: Wikipedia does NOT contain an article on the website editor of Britain's UKIP party (which is far bigger than the BNP), the English Democrats, the National Front, or even of the large parties such as the Conservative Party or the Labour Party.


 * It is absurd to have an obvious COATRACK article on someone who edited a tiny party's website and to claim that is "notable."


 * WP:BLP1E is highly relevant here, particularly the part which says that "Being in the news does not in itself mean that someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article." There is no good rationale for this article to exist.TheFallenCrowd (talk) 16:21, 18 May 2012 (UTC)


 * As I said, he isn't notable as a politician, and his claim to fame isn't being the BNP's website editor. His coverage largely comes from his involvement in a murder trial and the books he's written. If he meets WP:GNG, which I think he does, it doesn't matter how electorally successful the BNP are. And BLP1E isn't relevant because it "should be applied only to biographies of low-profile individuals". DoctorKubla (talk) 17:14, 18 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The Hani trial is a perfect example of the Wikipedia Wikipedia notability policy "Subjects notable for only one event" WP:BLP1E which specifically states that there should NOT be entries "only in the context of a single event."


 * The Hani trial took place in 1993, that is, two decades ago. The subject was merely one of over 100 witnesses in the trial, yet Wikipedia does not have an article on every single witness, many of whom were far more relevant to that trial (such as the eye-witnesses to the assassination, the people who supplied the firearm used and so on).
 * It is a complete non-starter to claim that the subject is notable for being a relatively minor witness in a trial two decades ago.
 * The Wiki guidelines on single event occurrences state clearly that where there is already an article on the event (which there is), there should NOT be an article on the individual. The only exception to this rule, as per the Wiki guidelines, will be if the individual played a very important role. The guidelines give the example of Princip as the assassin of ArchDuke Ferdinand. There is no suggestion that the subject of this article is even in the same league as Princip.
 * As to the claim that the subject is notable "for the books he has written": this is an equally absurd claim. The subject has written a handful of self-published books on Lulu. According to Lulu, there are "millions" of self-published titles on that website. Must Wikipedia now have an entry for every single self-published book on Lulu? That is ridiculous.TheFallenCrowd (talk) 17:34, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I have looked up the Wiki guidelines on "Low Profile" and "High Profile" individuals, to see if WP:BLP1E is applicable in this case. Looking at the definitions contained at WP:LOWPROFILE, there is no doubt that the subject qualifies, several times over.
 * "Media attention
 * High-profile: Has given one or more scheduled interviews to a notable publication, website, or television or radio program, as a "media personality" (a.k.a. "public face" or "big name"), a self-described "expert", or some other ostensibly (or would-be) notable commentator. Need not be a "household name", simply self-promotional. May ostensibly represent an employer or other group, but is clearly self-representing as well.


 * Low-profile: May have appeared on or been featured on such a show without their consent – e.g. "ambush journalism". May have been quoted or even profiled in a local or special-interest newspaper, website, magazine or other publication. May have been interviewed by a major news source as a "mouthpiece" – i.e., as part of his/her job as a spokesperson for an employer, representing that party not him/herself.


 * Promotional activities
 * High-profile: Has voluntarily participated in self-publicity activities, such as press conferences, promotional appearances, book signings, and the like; and/or has participated in an attention-seeking manner in publicity for some other concern, such as a cause, election campaign or commercial endorsee.


 * Low-profile: Has not participated in such activities. May have engaged in some major media/press activity or public speaking as a simple, non-self-promotional spokesperson employee for a company/organization. Might engage in local boosterism, e.g. about a municipal issue.


 * Appearances and performances
 * High-profile: Has appeared as a featured performer or speaker for a publicly advertised event at which admission was collected and/or which garnered significant independent, non-local coverage. May have produced publications (books, DVDs, etc.) or events that at least in part are designed (successfully or not) to self-promote and to attract favorable public attention.


 * Low-profile: Has appeared as a featured performer or speaker for a limited group, such as a professional or religious organization, or a local sporting, fundraising or activism event. May have fulfilled non-self-promotional functions based on experience or special knowledge, such as being an expert witness in a legal case. May have authored non-self-promotional publications, such as books or refereed journal articles on scientific, technical, historical, etc., topics.


 * Behavior pattern and activity level


 * High-profile: As of the writing (or review/editing) of the article (or as of the article subject's death) is (or was) engaged in high-profile activity, as described above, with or without a lifelong history of such activities. Or was engaged in high-profile activity as a lifelong endeavor, but is now (or at the end was) attempting to be low-profile. Typically notable or would-be notable for roles of various levels of importance in more than a single major event, or for a major role in one major event.


 * Low-profile: Has always avoided high-profile activity. Or may have attempted to maintain a high profile unsuccessfully in the past, or successfully for a limited time (and may be notable as a result of either), but has demonstrated a consistent pattern of low-profile activity since then. Often allegedly notable only for a minor role in one major event, or for a recurring major role in a series of minor events."


 * By all of these criteria, the subject qualifies as "low profile" so the guidelines of WP:BLP1E are clearly applicable.TheFallenCrowd (talk) 17:54, 18 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - Subject was a minor witness in a trial a long time ago. A junior webmaster for a party so small it has never won a seat in parliament and his book is self published. Hardly good enough criteria to be in Wikipedia NeilMcA (talk) 18:11, 18 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Although a scary guy, he meets WP:GNG as a journalist and writer. Night of the Big Wind  talk  11:02, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * WRONG. The Wiki guidelines for notability as a journalist and writer are contained at WP:AUTHOR and state the following:


 * "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."


 * The subject of this article has done NONE of those. Hence the claim that he is notable under these guidelines is completely incorrect. TheFallenCrowd (talk) 15:20, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No, you are wrong. I am referring to WP:GNG, which overrides you WP:AUTHOR in importance. And for sure, this scary guy meets If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list. I agree that guys like him should be locked up and the key thrown away, but even a creep can be notable. Night of the Big Wind  talk  21:27, 19 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete – Subject not notable as per wiki criteria. He received very sporadic media coverage as a non-self-promotional website designer for a small party. After that role he demonstrated a consistent pattern of low-profile activity. He had a minor role in a major event 20 years ago as one of 100 witnesses, many others being far more important to the trial but without Wikipedia entries. Like thousands of other self-publishers of unknown Lulu books, he does not deserve the publicity of an entry. Schreiberstuhl (talk) 11:19, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. There is a strong odor of socks here. Note that of the accounts voting for deletion above, six were newly created to vote for this AFD. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 15:59, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I am sure people will be persuaded by the incontrovertible evidence of non-notability, and not socks.TheFallenCrowd (talk) 16:32, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 20:18, 19 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete - Having read the definitions of notability for authors and journalists WP:AUTHOR, politicians WP:POLITICIAN, and for low-profile, single events, and individuals WP:BLP1E, there can be no doubt that the article has no justification for existence on Wikipedia, per the definitions of notability as defined by Wikipedia.JamesHilt62 (talk) 21:59, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - Kemp is an irrelevant and obscure individual who has apparently spent most of his life hiding behind a computer. What SEEMS to be known of him is usually propaganda concocted and disseminated by himself in order to stroke his own fragile ego. He is nothing but a pamphlet-peddler, lacking in substance as well as note-worthiness. Wiki should note waste its space with the likes of Kemp. DavidAllan1 (talk) 01:03, 21 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment. These sock/meatpuppets are coming up with increasingly irrelevant arguments. Let me restate my case in response to TheFallenCrowd and JamesHilt62.


 * Arthur Kemp does not meet WP:POLITICIAN. Arthur Kemp does not meet WP:AUTHOR. And WP:BLP1E does not apply. The only question remaining is whether Arthur Kemp meets the general notability guideline, and I haven't yet seen the "delete" side even address this issue, except to say that BLP1E overrules it.


 * Just to be clear: If Arthur Kemp were notable only for the murder trial, BLP1E would apply. If he were notable only for joining the British National Party, BLP1E might apply. If he were notable only for being a journalist and author, BLP1E would not apply (because journalists and authors are not low-profile). The fact is, he's notable for all of these things combined, which cannot be defined as 'one event'. Granted, there's some degree of interconnection - his books are mainly notable for having been written by a former BNP member, and his BNP membership was only noteworthy because he was linked to a murder trial - but allow me to quote from WP:WI1E (only an essay, but it makes sense to me): "When an individual is covered for a single event, and the spotlight follows that individual into his or her new endeavors, WP:BLP1E and WP:BIO1E have not been held by the Wikipedia community to be compelling reasons for deletion." DoctorKubla (talk) 09:15, 21 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment And noting that I was the one who mentioned the problem of a WP:False concensus above early on:
 * Is "being a member of the BNP" a sign in any way of notability? Nope.  Strike that part of the argument ab initio.
 * Is writing a book a sign of notability? It can be - the issue here is whether the book is notable, and, of so, should the BLP be in the article thereon, rather than being an argument for Kemp being notable as an author.  I suggest the book is marginally notable, but that is not a particularly strong argument for an admin to hang onto.
 * Is being a witness in a murder trial "notable"? Not as a general rule to be sure - else we could have millions of articles on such.
 * Thus I can see merit either way - but can not state as an absolute that non-notable attributes add to the person's notability either. Collect (talk) 12:56, 21 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment Collect is part way correct:

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)


 * I know this is futile, but I'm going to try explaining this one last time. Kemp does not fail all notability tests. He fails WP:AUTHOR, WP:POLITICIAN, and probably lots of other secondary guidelines. But that doesn't matter if he passes WP:GNG, which calls for significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. If you want to argue that he has no notability, that is the guideline you have to address. DoctorKubla (talk) 14:26, 23 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - Based on Wikipedia guidelines, this article fails notability criteria. Kemp has for long not been active within any of the groups or organisations whose association may previously have provided a basis for notability. I suspect the only reason this obscure article exists is for a desire on the part of original author to subvert Wikipedia into a platform from which to conduct a personal vendetta. Please delete.  Boerboel1 (talk) 11:18, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

As help for the deciding moderator
Single Purpose, Single Edit Accounts:, , , ,. , Single Purpose Accounts: Accounts only active on articles about right wing (ex-)South Africans:, ,.

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)
 * Objection: a review of my contributions shows a wide range of contributions which cover far more than South Africa. This entry is clearly an attempt to divert attention away from the facts of the matter, which are that the subject of this article fails all Wiki notability standards. It is obvious that "Night of the Big Wind" is on a personal vendetta, as evidenced by that user's repeated personal attacks and insults (see above). TheFallenCrowd (talk) 23:02, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Summary
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)
 * 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.