Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hugh Montgomery (historian)


 * 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   delete.  MBisanz  talk 00:46, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Hugh Montgomery (historian)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

An engineer turned small-town politician whose retirement was devoted to "Jesus bloodline" fringe theories (see fringe theory noticeboard discussion). Sources seem limited to local papers with no evidence of wider scale interest, nor as a town councilman does he meet notability standards for politicians. Characterization of him as a "historian" is also questionable given his lack of professional education in the field. Mangoe (talk) 16:50, 7 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete I agree. No specific training as a historian, and no claim to notablity as clearly stated by user:Agricolae on the FTN thread about him. And not really notable as an engineer either from all I can see. In any case, as an "amateur historian" he has no notability and his views are WP:Fringe - but the lack of notability is obvious now. History2007 (talk) 16:55, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not seeing anything to indicate notability. Definitely not a historian. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:04, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable self-published fringe author. Unlike more notable fringe authors of fabulous genealogy, such as Gardner, Montgomery's works have not risen to the point that serious scholars have even bothered to give them a negative review. Nothing else in his life meets the burden of notability either. Agricolae (talk) 18:19, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable fringe figure. Google searches turned up nothing beyond tangential mentions, and the subject has been totally ignored by the serious scholarly community. Fails all notability guidelines by a wide mile. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:24, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete; short on notability, and it's practically impossible to write neutral content on, err, controversial topics if there's no coverage by mainstream sources. bobrayner (talk) 21:36, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Hold up. There's a bit of a mistrial going on here. Can we delete Barabas the Jew instead this time please? I've significantly expanded this article since these votes have been cast. You've all voted before I've finished work on it. There is now a BBC source in the lede, mention of a Warner Brothers documentary, significant armed combat service, extensive charitable work, a university published book, a non-self published book, a Cambridge University geneaology journal reviewing his work positively and over thirty reliable, verifiable sources. And Staffordshire, if you aren't aware is a pretty big county with 1,071,400 inhabitants. Can you all come back and cast your votes again please? Over 30 sources here say keep. There is some debate to change to Hugh Montgomery (author), Hugh Montgomery (politician), Hugh Montgomery (British soldier), Hugh Montgomery (engineer) and Hugh Montgomery (businessman) that may be had, but I think if BBC Staffordshire  and thisisstafforshire.co.uk  call him a historian, then we should too. I think he would have liked that. He was highly notable and has influenced a lot of people.   Paul Bedson  ❉ talk ❉ 01:23, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment: I am sorry, but I am somewhat lost for words here, as I picked some of those to look at. A number of these references you just added go to make him look pretty pedestrian, and confirm my opinion that he is an unencyclopedic, non-notable item, e.g.


 * Daytime traffic ban proposals to attract High Street footfall which starts with "PLANS have been unveiled to ban daytime traffic from Uttoxeter's High Street in a bid to make the town centre more attractive to shoppers." And the only quote there is "Councillor Hugh Montgomery agreed and said: "I think, by and large, we should support this."


 * This "reference" is about preventing vehicles using the High Street in Uttoxeter (population 12,000) between 10am and 4pm from the junction with Smithfield Road and Carter Street.... This just confirms my delete vote. History2007 (talk) 01:33, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Well if every little thing he said and did got noted in the press, it just serves to increase notability. I think you are treading on dangerous ground setting a precedent that this level of local and regional coverage does not warrant an article on Wikipedia. If the level of notability demonstrated is "unencyclopedic", then you must want a very small encyclopedia. Paul Bedson  ❉ talk ❉ 02:03, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Please see WP:POLITICIAN, where it spells out the degree of coverage required for a politician to be notable. Mr. Montgomery does not meet that standard, at least based on newspaper reports of his activities in his political capacity.  Yes, someone made a 'documentary' from one of his books, and it too is non-notable.  A movie on Rotten Tomatoes that nobody has reviewed? That just proves the point.  'On the BBC'? Try, 'a local BBC blog reproduced his own press release'.  A Cambridge genealogy journal?  Again, no - the on-line newsletter of a Cambridge club.  A soldier? yes, but not every soldier is notable, and he does not meet those standards either (see WP:SOLDIER).  A university published book?  No.  A dissertation that was submitted, but given that he did not later use the title a success would confer, it doesn't look like this speaks well either.  And his genealogy?  Don't get me started - it's a joke unworthy even of the pages in a real genealogy journal (like TGM, TG, TAG, NEHGR, NGSQ or Foundations) that it would take to dismiss it.  Notability is not additive - you can't just, by wealth of insignificant details, elevate a non-notable person to a position of notability.  Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and the inclusion of someone with so little claim to notability is the very definition of indiscriminate.  Agricolae (talk) 03:06, 8 November 2012 (UTC)::


 * Comment *He easily meets WP:POITICIAN (on mayoral and significant other coverage grounds) and WP:AUTHOR. I think you'll find that Cambridge Journal is not "online only", but highly respectable and in print . I'll get around to your other ridiculous arguments later but have to go to work. As for his genealogies, he could teach our best historians something as they are far advanced of Wikipedias and make our entire efforts on the subject look childish. Paul Bedson  ❉ talk ❉ 07:51, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * What you keep calling a 'Cambridge Journal' is not "well respected" as a genealogical publication, and it is not a "Cambridge Journal". Not every item printed by people at Cambridge is a 'Cambridge Journal'.  You are right that this newsletter is also produced in hard-copy, but it is still just a newsletter of a very small university social club, not a scholarly journal.  WP:POLITICIAN has two criteria mentioned: 1) "hold international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office". FAIL.; 2) "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage", where significant coverage is defined as "has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists." (emphasis added). FAIL. WP:AUTHOR gives: 1) considered an "important figure widely cited by his peers" FAIL; 2) "originating a a significant new concept, theory or technique" FAIL; 3) "created, . . . a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film [This does not include films 'based on' books . . . ], or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews" (emphasis added) FAIL; 4) "has won significant critical attention" FAIL. WHat his genealogy could teach us is how one can allow misplaced enthusiasm to overcome prudence and historical reality. Agricolae (talk) 15:09, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree completely. Paul, you are still having problems understanding (or possibly agreeing with) our policy on reliable sources. Given the large number of articles you have written, this is disturbing. And I thought you agreed to cease creating fringe articles. Dougweller (talk) 17:09, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * This one isn't fringe though Doug. Monty did groundbreaking genealogy research in various areas, mostly very dry, mainstream stuff on Scandinavian and European dynasties. He pulled all sorts of sources from all round the world, I suggest you read up on it, he beat up on Laurence Gardner theories even more than you do, knew every hole in that plot and re-worded, researched and put the way straight. I still argue strongly that he passes WP:AUTHOR and WP:POLITICIAN by a flying mile. With three professional fields of study, I'd suggest he passes WP:SCHOLAR by a flying mile too. His geneaologies were significantly different in many areas (and much wider, with reams of unique, important historical information) than anyone elses making it a significant new concept theory or technique: PASS, (if I have to go sourcing all his work on here, finding all the original manuscripts he found in far distant parts of Scandinavia and Middle Eastern collections, from other external secondary sources, it would take me years and years of editing) his work was featured in multiple independent periodical articles and reviews. PASS. As for a politician, he held a deputy mayor position at sub-national level:PASS, He was a major local political figures who have received significant press coverage", where significant coverage is defined as "has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, to which you can add to the list above  along with the overwhelming number of other articles that perhaps did not feature him as the central attraction but show high notability. I guess if y'all want to keep Wikipedia in the dark ages then delete is the way to go, but I'll go all the way defending the likes of a good, local hero who showed that you can be notable and groundbreaking in your own back yard.  Paul Bedson  ❉ talk ❉ 18:44, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, I tried to be nice, but here is the unvarnished truth. Mr. Montgomery did groundbreaking nonsense with the Scandinavian and European dynasties, and his unique contributions are ridiculed by those medieval genealogists who even bother giving his works the time of day.  His genealogies were significantly different because they were utterly ridiculous in a novel way.  This makes his concepts new, but not significant ones because genealogical fantasy is a dime a dozen.  Anyone can make up anything, and the fact that his were different in the names that he invented connections between does nothing to make his creations significant to the field - the field actually has to accept his conclusions to make them significant, and that is never going to happen when an author just makes things up, as Montgomery did.  He beat up on Gardner only to come up with his own outlandish and impossible-to-support lame theories about dynasties stretching from the mists of time.  There is not a single shred of evidence for these fantastical dynasties that he has cobbled together with wishful thinking, and the fact that the experts in the field (not just a bunch of university hobbyists, but those who publish scholarly medieval genealogy in Foundations, TGM, TAG, NEHGR, etc.) don't find it worth the effort of formally refuting it speaks volumes.  Having three fields of study does not pass WP:SCHOLAR - it is not cumulative, and you don't become notable by being mediocre-to-poor at a lot of things, but publishing your own books - you actually have to be at the top of your field in one of them.  You can stress that you strongly believe what you are saying, but that doesn't change the fact that you are misusing the criteria. Anyone can be groundbreaking in their own back yard - all it takes is a shovel, but nobody cares if you now have a hole in your back yard. Agricolae (talk) 19:44, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * If I may ask just one question. Which books of his have you read to support your judgement on these matters. Have you read any at all? If not, I suggest you refrain from further comment. I have no way of telling what use or unique impact his work in the fields of Audiology, Engineering and Business because I haven't read them. So I suggest you follow my example. And of course fame is cumulative, that's why Wikipedia requires multiple sources and the substantial coverage that Montgomery has received, besides he doesn't need three fields of study because he qualifies under guidelines, he only needs one. Which with a unique historical publications charting a unique family history of a very large Montgomery family back to the middle ages. He also qualifies easily under WP:SCHOLAR guidline 3. The person is or has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association, in this case the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland also under guideline 6. - "The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed academic post at a major academic institution or major academic society." (Megatrend University meets criteria, even if you don't count the West London Busines School) and under guideline 7: "The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity." in his local council role, where he was "frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area." Paul Bedson  ❉ talk ❉ 20:22, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh, and with regards the Cambridge University Heraldic and Genealogical Society and their journal. They do come from Cambridge University if it isn't overly apparent in the title, and most specialist journals have small readerships. And if he does fail on not getting any critical coverage (which is only 1 of the 3 elements that he can pass notability on), has anyone assumed that might be because he didn't do much wrong and certainly should limit the use of the word "fringe" till someone notable actually calls any of his work that. Paul Bedson  ❉ talk ❉ 18:48, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Redlinking a university club's elaborately named newsletter (as you did earlier) does not turn it into a notable scholarly work. It is not notable, and if you create a page for it, we are going to end up right back here again. Here are a few simple questions that you can ask when you look at a copy. Does it have instructions for authors?  Do the articles have detailed footnotes giving the sources for the information?  Does it have credentialed editors who are experts in their field?  Does it have articles that address scholarly topics rather than the entertainment at the club's annual dinner?  Has the head of the organization that publishes the journal actually made it to his 21st birthday yet? Then it's probably not a scholarly journal. Agricolae (talk) 19:44, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It already has a page that I didn't need to write (because it's highly notable). I changed the red to blue to so all the gobbledegook questions about the society can be answered there : Cambridge University Heraldic and Genealogical Society. Paul Bedson  ❉ talk ❉ 19:52, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * No, the newsletter does not have a page, nor should it. Agricolae (talk) 20:01, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * My giddy aunt! I really don't have time to go around all night explaining everything and reading articles to you that you can easily read yourself. I have important work to do! The Escutcheon is already mentioned and redirects to that article. It is under the Publications section, at the bottom, where it's scholarly prestige as a publication and the struggle it had to become one is covered. So it doesn't need it's own article, it has already been redirected by someone who recognized it's notability. Can you please do some reading before rushing around making all these blindfolded suggestions and comments everywhere! Paul Bedson  ❉ talk ❉ 20:40, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Your giddy aunt may have read that article and reached the conclusion you did, but nobody else would. What the page you are citing has to say about the struggles to make this publication prestigious is the following, "In 1995 the Society launched a magazine, called the Escutcheon, which appears each term. It is edited by Derek Palgrave."  That's it.  Someone would have to be smoking something illicit to read that and think that it says anything about the prestige of the publication or how scholarly it is.  Rather than taking the time to read it to me, you should just take more time to read it yourself.  Anyhow, I am not basing my assessment on whatever got written into a Wikipedia page or whether or not there is a redirect.  I am basing it on the newsletter itself.  It has none of the characteristics of a scholarly journal except that they have chosen to call it a 'journal'.  The newsletter of a social organization formed by a bunch of undergrads with a Jones for coats of arms and surnames - that's all it is.  Agricolae (talk) 22:18, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I had better finish with the ridiculous arguments too. 1) His thesis was published in 2002 by the Megatrend University, London. Please read the cite again, it has been improved. 2) He probably does qualify for WP:SOLDIER as he has had three in depth features on his military activities that you can dig out above from the Burton Mail, etc. Are you still reading yesterday's version perhaps? Paul Bedson  ❉ talk ❉ 19:29, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * He has a PhD from Megatrend? That's pretty damning. Dougweller (talk) 22:01, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - Balanced and useful information. It may not be useful to you, but again, the more concrete the standards for notability, the conversely less of an emotional appeal to make a judgement call  on whether one personally finds something 'of note', is required.  I would also suggest running this one past the 'Notability Noticeboard' and see if respondents there would agree there is no notability for any readers here. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 07:33, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Non-notable. Sources are passing mentions, not significant coverage in reliable sources. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:23, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete I don't see much in the way of notability here. If he's notable a historian, then lots of historians should have mentioned him...and I don't see that here.  Too much of the enthusiasm for keeping this article are from people who knew him personally - and that's a red flag. SteveBaker (talk) 14:28, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't "know him personally", (and I am the only person writing the article that "knew" anything about him before two days ago) I have all his books, but only ever met him once for a dinner after a lecture in 2007. I'm not even close enough to know anyone in direct contact with him to confirm any further details of his death. So green flag that one. Paul Bedson  ❉ talk ❉ 19:20, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Paul, that got me curious, so I googled and found the Uttoxeter Town website names him as the current deputy mayor for 2012-2013, as of Oct 26, 2012. And an Oct 31 newspaper article says he attended a town council meeting "last week".  Surely if he had passed away, this would be reported somewhere, so it sounds like he is probably living. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 19:42, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, lets hope this article gets ressurected so easily. May he go on doing good deeds and increasing his notability. Best news of the night. Cheers Til. I've admitted below that I only heard through a rumour-mill that he had died. I will go update all the tenses, and the friend that told me. Perhaps he will get his Warner Brothers documentary after all? :-) Paul Bedson  ❉ talk ❉ 20:52, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Lack of notability. Dougweller (talk) 17:09, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep As mentioned above, I'd also say running this past the notability noticeboard would be a good idea. A lot of the article is non-notable, but there is enough information here to be useful. If not kept, some of the information could possibly be merged into various other articles, such as the Local Councillor section into Uttoxeter and Hisorical theories into Theories of religion. Æthelred (talk) 19:43, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I understand your grounds for keep. You have elaborated on why you think it should be merged, not kept. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:10, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Please see the 3 WP:SCHOLAR notability guidelines that this article easily meets the requirements of in my discussion above. Paul Bedson  ❉ talk ❉ 20:25, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Apologies IRWolfie-, in more depth, I believe he meets notability for WP:SCHOLAR as a fellow of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland. If, after this discussion, it is thought he still does not meet notability guidelines, I propose a Merge as stated. Æthelred (talk) 21:00, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:33, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:33, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:33, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:33, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:33, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Abstain due to issues raised with the 4 points below. Original text follows: Any one of the following satisfies notability. I agree not all of the sources are as in-depth as they could ideally be, but when looked at as a whole the sum is greater than the parts. Montgomery has done so many things that are on the border of notability at some point the balance tips.
 * 1. According to WP:SCHOLAR #6: "The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed academic post at a major academic institution or major academic society. Criterion 6 may be satisfied, for example, if the person has held the post of President." Hugh Montgomery was President of Megatrend University of Applied Sciences.
 * 2. According to WP:SCHOLAR #3: "The person is or has been an elected member of a Fellow of a major scholarly society for which that is a highly selective honor." Hugh Montgomery was a Fellow of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland which is an old and well established Society with membership by election.
 * 3. According to WP:CREATIVE #3: "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." Montgomery's book trilogy (God-Kings of Europe (2006), God-Kings of England (2007) and God-Kings of Outremer (2008)) were adapted into a Documentary God Kings: The Descendants of Jesus (2009) by Warner Bros.
 * 4. According to WP:POLITICIAN #2: "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage." He was elected Mayor of Uttoxeter, one of the major population centers of the Ceremonial county of Staffordshire.
 * -- Green Cardamom (talk) 20:25, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I can find no record of him being president of megatrend at (I'm having issues enough just verifying this is an actual university). Uttoxeter is a small town of 12,023 people. "The God Kings" was not produced by warner brothers . The Society of Antiquaries of Scotland appears to have a rather dubious claim to notability itself. Compared to say, the Royal Society. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:28, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You appear (somehow) to have missed the 20 or 30 records of his presidency in the article. Staffordshire contains over a million people, where he is widely covered along with Burton-on-Trent, population circa. 43,000. No-one has said that Warner Brothers have produced the documentary yet. They have merely invited him to produce one (that is in the rumour mill to be a James Cameron movie about Constantine the Great that Megatrend University holds a 10% stake in). I am interested in why you think the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland has a "dubious claim to notability" because I can find no record of that. I'm not sure you grasp the concept of notability. Are you going to try and delete that article next?  Paul Bedson  ❉ talk ❉ 21:48, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you show me a high quality source that supports the presidency? From its own website, this universty appears to have only opened in the last 10 years as an actual universtiy rather than a business school. Because I'm having issues believing the current low quality sources. Specifically, a source which lists him with other presidents. You think I have a poor grasp of notability? Please, you've a 44.4% failure rate at AfD over 9 AfDs, mine is 18.7% over 166 AfDs. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:57, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment: I've examined the sources and claims above, and come to the conclusion that they do not even come close to establishing notability. The sources are almost entirely routine, trivial and tangential mentions of local interest only. As for the claims given by Green Cardamon above:
 * 1) I can find no independent collaboration that the subject was president of that "university", nor any independent collaboration that that "university" is a serious institution of higher learning. I smell diploma mill, or fly-by-night sham school. The claim is dubious to the extreme because he lacks the academic credentials to be president of a serious university.
 * 2) The Society of Antiquaries of Scotland has an amazing 3,000 fellows. That's quite a lot for a society in a smallish country with a rather circumscribed scope of interest. This means that being a fellow is far from prestigious, and contributes little to notability.
 * 3) The books mentioned rank 955413, 409159 and 404735 on the list at Amazon.com. Furthermore, I can find no evidence any have ever been cited by serious scholars. The documentary film is truly obscure, and hasn't been reviewed by anyone at all. No one has commented on it at either IMDB or Rotten Tomatoes. Neither the books nor the film contribute much to notability.
 * 4) The "major population center" of which he was a deputy mayor has a population of twelve thousand. Being the deputy mayor of such a small town contributes nothing to notability, especially as there is no significant coverage about his activities there.
 * All in all, there's a lot of puffery going on here to manufacture notability for an obscure fringe writer. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:52, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Here is a list of the university's publications, including Montgomery's from the period he was president as listed in the 20 or 30 independent collaborations that I told the guy above you about. You can find that the University has a position as president on their website. Mongtgomery has  a Ph.D which I've added to the lede. 2) The Society in Scotland has members around the United Kingdom, which is not a small ocuntry with circa. 60 million people living here. 3) Montgomery Millenium and his scholarly publications are the only ones that matter according to guidelines. This point is entirely irrelevant. 4) The UK is not Texas and is densley populated with villages around that area, as Uttoxeter is the nearest town to the UK's biggest theme park, Alton Towers. The "Major population centre" for that area is Stoke-on-Trent, population circa 400,000. Uttoxeter Post & Times circulation is around 3000, Burton Mail around 12000, Thisisstaffordshire.co.uk and BBC Staffordshire audiences much greater however all this is doesn't matter because he is a mayor with significant coverage, whatever the level, a scholar who led a University and published unique research in scholarly publications and substantial use of his academic interests outside that position. All that's going on here is a load of puffery and poppycock in order to ignore Wikipedia guidelines.  Paul Bedson  ❉ talk ❉ 01:40, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I've removed the claim he was President as there was no reliable source for it - it's an obvious BLP violation without one, as is the claim Warner Brothers invited him to do anything. By the way, 'mayor' is just an honorary position in the UK except for a few large cities which now have an elected mayor. Dougweller (talk) 19:41, 9 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - Lest this be lost in the back and forth, let me state this unambiguously for those unfamiliar with the scholarship in the field. Anyone, such as this author, claiming that there are genealogical descents from Jesus Christ will never be notable as a scholarly writer of history or genealogy based on this work.  The surviving evidence does not allow any reasonable scholar to reach the conclusion that such a descent exists.  These claims are both fringe and fictional by definition, and they are treated as a joke by the scholars in the field. To be notable, such an author has to be particularly fortunate in the popular media (e.g. Dan Brown) because you will never be notable for it as history/genealogy. Agricolae (talk) 02:24, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * - And while I am at it, the claim made in the lede that DNA evidence supports his theory is complete bullshit. The fault lies with the original source, the home-town newspaper again, but it is utter nonsense. If that is indicative of the level of fact-checking that their 'reporters' do, then everything from the Uttoxeter newspaper should be dismissed as being from a non-reliable/non-independent source, because the newspaper is clearly just parroting whatever Montgomery tells them since there isn't the slightest bit of accuracy to the claim. Agricolae (talk) 02:24, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * If the newspaper is parroting everything he says, then he's a editor of a prominent regular publication and qualifies for notability on yet another context. If we apply your logic, Wikipedia should delete every local and regional newspaper and every Cambridge University Journal source which is a very silly logic now isn't it. Paul Bedson  ❉ talk ❉ 12:01, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, these mischaracterizations of my position are indeed silly. When a newspaper fails to do fact-checking and simply repeats what they are told by a source, that does not make the interviewee an editor.  To claim so is just ridiculous. It just means that the newspaper is irredeemably unreliable.  As to the second straw-man.  I am not saying that no local newspaper can be used.  I am saying that appearance in a local newspaper is insufficient to establish notability because they report on everything from the local boy scout troop to local businesses to local athletics, none of which is notable by Wikipedia standards. I am also saying that this particular local newspaper is not a reliable source, as they make no attempt to fact-check their information.  That is a critical basis for evaluating reliability, whether they fact-check or just parrot.  I am also not saying that Cambridge University Journals should not be used, and you know it.  I have said, again and again, that in spite of the glorified description this club gave it, their publication is not a journal at all, just a newsletter.  It is not peer reviewed, it is not open for external submission, it is not produced by an academic unit of the University nor by its publishing wing.  A Cambridge University Journal is a reliable scholarly source.  The 'journal' of an organization of Cambridge students is not a Cambridge University Journal. Agricolae (talk) 17:26, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, Agricolae is making wild presumptions, assumptions and accusations without any evidence of doing any reading or research whatsoever. It is very clear in the article that Montgomery does not support the works of Dan Brown, etc. in any way shape or form. His quote in the article shows he treats those theories as a joke. I'll come back later to explain the implications of the DNA evidence if you like can't be bothered watching his lectures about it. In the meantime, I suggest you think on the readership of thisisstafforshire.co.uk for me. Paul Bedson  ❉ talk ❉ 07:40, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not making wild presumptions and I never said that Montgomery supported Dan Brown. He supports genealogy that is just as wacky as that of Dan Brown, just with different made-up names strung together to get to the same place.  It is typical that a fringe author treats the fringe theories of others as a joke, but it makes their own no less humorous to the mainstream.  As to the DNA evidence, please don't waste your time. I know more about DNA than just how to spell it and I know precisely what can and cannot be supported based on existing evidence.  The readership of thisisstaffordshire doesn't really change a thing in this assessment.  A million people could read that website, and the claim to DNA support would still be delusional wishful thinking.  Ten million could read that blog and the author's fantastical genealogical writings would still be considered a joke by the experts in the field. Agricolae (talk) 15:19, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you're familiar with genetics, so I'll cut to the chase. The DNA support is based on the Y-chromosomal Aaron work produced by Harvard University biochemist Anatole Klyosov, Montgomery had his DNA tested and is Haplogroup J2 (Y-DNA) 12-23-14-10-13-17-11-16-11-13-11-[29], one mutation away from the Cohen Modal Haplotype, which only serves to show that his J2 ancestry dates back to a period after 550 CE, which could be 700 CE or later and he admits that. This is nothing to do with Jesus, Odin or fringery. The bulk of Monty's work concentrates on the historical period after 550 CE anyhow. Paul Bedson  ❉ talk ❉ 17:21, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * So maybe his mother shtupped the local rabbi. To quote the original source, "A Local historian is re-releasing a book about Jesus after DNA evidence suggested his findings are correct."  No, that has absolutely nothing to do with Jesus.  Forget Jesus and Odin, the suggestion that the Montgomerys can be traced before the late 900s is fringy.  His House of Ulvungar work is fringy.  Basically, everything he does in genealogy is fringy because his priorities are those of an ancestor-collector and magpie and not of a scholar. Agricolae (talk) 19:00, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * While not directly relevant to the AfD, I thought I had best support this claim of fringery, so I will do that on the WP:FTN. Agricolae (talk) 18:25, 10 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment His military career is NN; so are his activities as a local councillor - town councils are a variety of parish councils and even district councillors are usually NN. I suspect that his career at Megatrend university was as a professor in the American sense (NN unless notable publications).  I suspect his books are essentially self-published.  I voted weak keep on another councillor-author, but I am more dubious in this case.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:21, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I am still working on the article with some Serbian sources coming to improve notability even further to help allay your suspicions. Could really use any sort of keep you might consider. Cheers Peter. Paul Bedson  ❉ talk ❉ 17:39, 9 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment on Warner Brothers & publidations I see this is produced on demand, see . This sort of thing usually suggests lack of notability, not notability. I'm removing two of his publications from the article because the only source I can find for them is one of his books Dougweller (talk) 19:17, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: I don't think the Warner Brothers reference is to that old boring lecture. I have my suspicions Montgomery has a greater plan if this rumour mill connects the dots about some behind the scenes discussions involving a James Cameron movie about Constantine the Great that Megatrend University holds a 10% stake in). None of that can go on the article of course, but it's a great rumour from a serbian cafe and suggests the local news article relates to a different project.  Paul Bedson  ❉ talk ❉ 23:14, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment:Fellowship of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland appears to be available on request: see application form. Applicants need to be supported by two existing fellows or other referees who "who are in a position to know of, and appreciate, your commitment to the study and understanding of Scotland’s past,". Doesn't sound like a "highly selective" honour. Pam  D  19:20, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It isn't. There are a number of fringe writers who have obtained membership. Dougweller (talk) 19:26, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Along with a number of scholars too. Paul Bedson  ❉ talk ❉ 23:14, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The point is that it erodes its use as a claim to notability since including fringe writers removes its claims to be being a " major scholarly society for which that is a highly selective honor". IRWolfie- (talk) 13:08, 10 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. Non-notable, since sources are passing mentions, not significant coverage in WP:RS. Qworty (talk) 05:56, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Notability not established to Wikipedia standards and precedents. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:29, 10 November 2012 (UTC).
 * ' Delete'  (sorry, I !voted already, this is a comment) Paul is still not able to find a reliable source saying that he was President of Megatrend. The sources he has found are copying each other and his Cambridge Journal is not an academic journal. If he'd been President of Megatrend sources such as the Serbian one saying he'd been awarded an honorary degree might be expected not to have overlooked it, and Megatrend itself would surely mention it somewhere. As for being mayor or deputy mayor, Uttoxeter is only a parish council with very limited governing and taxation powers, and 'mayor' (or is it deputy?) is the term used for chairman of the council, elected by other councillors. Dougweller (talk) 12:56, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Why is he being called mayor here (in an effort to show he is notable) when the article calls him deputy mayor (which means deputy chairman of the town council)? Even if he were a parish council mayor, that doesn't make him automatically notable. Dougweller (talk) 14:29, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * To clarify this further he is a local councilor in a tiny parish council (a civil not religious parish), getting 792 votes in the last election, and is deputy chairman. There are two wards electing members to the town council, and in this ward there were 5339 people eligible to vote and 2162 ballot papers were issued. In no way is this major. Dougweller (talk) 06:49, 11 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. The honorary doctorate is not enough by itself and I can't see anything else in here to justify notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:02, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I suggest Monty's honorary doctorate from the Megatrend University is additional to another Ph.D in Audiology from the University of Belgrade. Paul Bedson  ❉ talk ❉ 15:53, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Neither an earned doctorate nor an honorary doctorate establishes notability. A million people get PhDs every year and some of them can't screw in a lightbulb, and some institutions give out honoraries to their commencement speakers or those who make a sizable contribution to their endowment fund. Agricolae (talk) 16:18, 11 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. Not notable by Wikipedia standards, though not an uninteresting chap. Honestly, though, a lectureship/honorary doctorate from a place called "Megatrend University" is a strike against one's notability. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:35, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete fails the three categories it may be included under (Author, Scholar, Politician). Numerous mentions in local media, but nothing substantial enough to pass the GNG.  The Interior  (Talk) 17:42, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I've performed emergency surgery on poor old Monty to try and help this former president of a nationally recognized university and diplomat of peace and education to war-torn Serbia obtain notability. Nothing to delete here now folks, return to your homes. Paul Bedson  ❉ talk ❉ 20:23, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Other than that you have decorated the article with a whole lot of material entirely unsupported by reliable citation (a no-no for a BLP), I still see no evidence of notability. Agricolae (talk) 21:17, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "Lipstick on a pig" is exactly what I was thinking. You beat me to it. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:23, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Formal warning given to Paul for continued claims that he was President (both here and replacing it in the article). This is a BLP and such claims need clearly reliable sources. Dougweller (talk) 22:07, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Paul Bedson ❉ talk ❉ 00:08, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete as lacking in depth coverage in independent sources and with one eye on WP:Fringe. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:23, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not even close to being notable. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:40, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Well, if you are going to delete Monty and the last two millenia of history. Then I've created a way to fill in the mess that our history section is in with all the most reliable, non-Roman Catholic influenced sources outside of Monty that I am aware of. They feature several notable people you might have heard of. With this, if sadly without Monty's genealogies, we can start compiling Human history properly. Anyone fancy lending a hand?
 * Comment on reliability of http://www.societies.cam.ac.uk/cuhags/escutcheon/2003-04/br_e.htm : that's a book review of the subjects' book. It shows no evidence of critical appraisal of the author of the book or his qualifications and the presidential claim is likely to have been copied directly from the authors book, making this a non-reliable source for this claim, in my view. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:18, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment to show that I am doing my best I have e-mailed prof. dr Slobodan Pajović, their Vice-rector for international cooperation and Aleksandar Đorđević, their Acting director of international cooperation department, in Serbian and English requesting the names of their first and second presidents, and the dates for Montgomery. Paul Bedson  ❉ talk ❉ 21:01, 14 November 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.