Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martin Allen (publicist)


 * 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 redirect to The National Archives (United Kingdom). While the nominator and AllyD prefer deletion, I presume that E.M.Gregory's suggestion, seconded by Kingiron, is a suggestion without opposition; and as the saying goes, redirects are cheap (if any administrator wishes to delete the history of the redirected article, please feel free to do so). (non-admin closure)  Lourdes  03:06, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Martin Allen (publicist)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Nothing on why he is notable, only source is own book. Fails GNG Killer Moff (talk) 11:23, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:38, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:39, 1 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete: I have added a couple of newspaper sources about the identification of the forged material which had been placed in the Kew archives. I don't see biographical notability as being obtained from that event, nor any wider evidence that could establish notability, whether by WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 13:26, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. For me, there is biographical notability, coming from two affairs. Marvoir (talk) 13:54, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:26, 1 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Revise, rename, and keep (changing iVote, see below) Here is a source that puts this guy in a nutshell:  He peddles crackpot history sourced to documents he forged and planted in the National Archives.  I suppose that we keep but rename the article Martin Allen forgeries., .E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:53, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * , as far as I can see from the Google source, the subject denied any allegation, and The Guardian source indicates that "the Crown Prosecution Service decided that it was not in the public interest to prosecute, in part because of Allen's deteriorating health" (which indeed is the sum total of biographical information about the subject). I do not see that your suggested name would be appropriate/fair, in the absence of a legally proven responsibility. AllyD (talk) 07:29, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Allen isn't notable independent of the forged documents, if kept the article needs to focus on the forgery, .E.M.Gregory (talk)


 * Redirect to The National Archives (United Kingdom) No need to merge any of the material form this page. Allen is popular among those who wish to rewrite history so that Nazism is viewed s a positive good.  Editors can be innocent dupes of this WP:FRINGE sort of Pseudohistory.  Allen and his books became notable only due to the forgeries he created and slipped into file folders in the National Archives.  Best to keep this material in The National Archives since any page on Allen or his books will be vulnerable to attempts to make Allen appear to be a reputable scholar.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:08, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete or REdirect. This is a sub article about a NN author promoting a NN fringe theory.  If E.M.Gregory is right that he has been perpetrating a forgery, but interfering with archives, he should not be given the oxygen of publicity.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:00, 4 June 2017 (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.