Talk:Arthur Kemp

Historic Afd discussions

Undue and weight

• - Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Arthur_Kemp

More discussion here - User_talk:C.Fred#Kemp

After a request for investigation from the recent closing AFD admin I removed some of the imo undue and weight details from the lede - my edits were replaced - so I am opening a discussion here to talk about them - Youreallycan 22:02, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

• My first edit I removed this - "and was responsible for the content of that party's website" - to me this seems undue - he was responsible? in what way? Youreallycan 22:06, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Non-Notability

According to Wikipedia's notability criteria for politicians: WP:POLITICIAN

"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.[12] 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.[7] 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 does clearly not meet the notability criteria for politicians under the WP criteria.

According to Wikipedia's notablity criteria for books WP:BKCRIT

"A book is generally notable if it verifiably meets through reliable sources, one or more of the following criteria: The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews. Some of these works should contain sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book. The book has won a major literary award. The book has been considered by reliable sources to have made a significant contribution to a notable motion picture, or other art form, or event or political or religious movement. The book is the subject of instruction at multiple grade schools, high schools, universities or post-graduate programs in any particular country. The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable. This does not simply mean that the book's author is him/herself notable by Wikipedia's standards; rather, the book's author is of exceptional significance and the author's life and body of written work would be a common subject of academic study."

Kemp clearly does not meet the notability criteria for authors or books under the WP criteria.

There is therefore no justification for this Wikipedia article at all.TheFallenCrowd (talk) 10:54, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

You can't just declare that the article is about someone non-notable and then personally delete all the content. You have to go through the procedure for deletion. Of course you know this and you have done this already. The article was not deleted and you are now saying that your own personal view somehow overrides the decision of the community. That is contrary to pretty well all the principles by which can reasonably work. Your edits are therefore in effect acts of vandalism. Paul B (talk) 12:48, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

The discussion on the AFD 3 agreed that the subject did not meet the notability requirements for a politician or an author. All of the participants agreed on that. The changes to the article merely represent that agreement.TheFallenCrowd (talk) 12:57, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

No they don't. The "changes" are just attempts to stub the article. You also utterly misunderstand policy. The notability requirements concern the decision whether or not to have an article. They do not mean that all content that is not sufficient to create notability in itself should be removed. That would indeed be an absurd rule were it to exist, which of course it does not. A man is not notable, for example, because he in born in Liverpool, or has a wife called Sarah. But we don't remove all such facts from articles because they are not the reason for the person's notability. Paul B (talk) 13:17, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

You are wrong. The WP Notability criteria are very simple and clear:

WP:POLITICIAN

"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."

Kemp has NOT been elected to oublic office of any sort, nor, as far as anyone is aware, has he even stood for office.

"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."

Kemp has NOT been the subject of "significant" press coverage.

Therefore there is ZERO grounds for inclusion as a politician on Wikipedia.TheFallenCrowd (talk) 14:12, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

You have not even addressed the point. Here's another example Charles Beauclerk, Earl of Burford. I doubt he would satisfy notability criteria as an author or as a politician, but because his combined efforts raise him above the bar for GNG, all his activities should be in the article, including his stellar political career standing for election once and getting less than 1% of the vote. That is part of the whole. We don't delete that section because alone it is not sufficient to guarrantee notability. Your endless listing of criteria for notabilty apply to article creation not content as I have already explained. Paul B (talk) 14:37, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Paul Barlow. WP:POLITICIAN is not the only criteria for inclusion. A person who fails WP:POLITICIAN can still meet notability via WP:GNG, which seems to be the case here. Zad68 14:41, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Let us then look at the General notability guideline WP:GNG and see if Kemp qualifies under them then:

"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."

Kemp has NOT received "significant coverage" in "reliable sources."

In terms of WP:GNG "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.

One article about packing leaflets in a warehouse (referenced on the site) does NOT constitute "significant coverage" by any stretch of the imagination, especially bearing in mind that Kemp has utterly failed the politician notability guidelines as well (see above.)

Are we going to have a stand alone article about EVERY leaflet packer for every single party in Britain or the world? It is an absurd notion.

In terms of WP:GNG a "reliable source" is open to "editorial integrity" -- what that essentially means is it is a subjective matter. In other words, some may question the SPLC as a "source" while others will think that it is. Given that Kemp has failed both politician and author Wikipedia guidelines, it is far fetched to think that an obviously politically-motivated "source" such as the SPLC should then be taken as a criteria for inclusion.

Once again, are we going to have a stand alone article on EVERY single person that the SPLC has mentioned? It is an equally absurd notion.TheFallenCrowd (talk) 15:23, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

OK so I'm glad you agree now that WP:POLITICIAN isn't the only notability guideline that could apply here. The AFD discussion was closed with the note that whether WP:GNG might be met really was not discussed properly during the AFD. So let's look at whether he might meet WP:GNG. The article has three newspaper articles from WP:RS-respected news sources: an article from Western Mail, one from The Guardian, and one from The Independent. In each case, I would describe the coverage as "non-trivial" because the articles really could not exist if they didn't mention Kemp. From my experience working on Wikipedia biography articles, the Wikipedia-wide consensus is that this meets WP:GNG, so I don't agree with your assessment. I'm not saying it's a super-high "pass" of the WP:GNG guideline, but it's a pass.

Regardless, this is the not the venue for discussing whether the article should be deleted. That venue is WP:AFD. Removing article content because you didn't like the result of the WP:AFD is against Wikipedia process and will be considered disruptive if it continues.

Your question "are we going to have a stand alone article on EVERY single person that the SPLC has mentioned?" is arguing against a strawman. There is a WP:GNG case to keep every article with the coverage level this article provides, whether or not the subject of the article is a person the SPLC has mentioned. Zad68 15:48, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Since it hasn't been mentioned yet except in my edit summary....WP:NNC - "The criteria applied to article content are not the same as those applied to article creation. The notability guidelines do not apply to article or list content (with the exception that some lists restrict inclusion to notable items or people). Content coverage within a given article or list is governed by the principle of due weight and other content policies". Therefore you don't get to say he doesn't meet WP:POLITICIAN then delete all mention of his political activities, and the same applies to all other notability criteria. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 17:35, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

One should seriously question the notability of one Arthur Kemp. After having researched this individual one could see that he has no academic credentials as a historian, all of his works were self-published and the totality of his political activity has been in small neo-nazi outfits or far right extremist organizations, in addition to strong well founded allegations of him being an intelligence plant of some sort. The inclusion of a person as insignificant and unimportant as Arthur Benjamin Kemp, a real fringe nobody in the political scene, in Wikipedia seems to be the result of an effort by this individual himself to self-aggrandize and therefore takes away from the serious nature of Wikipedia. Or has Wikipedia transformed now into a vanity platform for narcisssitic megalomaniacs? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThaAccidentalObserver (talk • contribs) 10:54, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

3RR violation by TheFallenCrowd‎

TheFallenCrowd‎, you have violated the WP:3RR with your latest revert. Please self-revert or this will be reported at WP:EWN. (A similar message has also been left at your Talk page.) Thank you. Zad68 15:58, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

RfC

BAn RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 16:25, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring and deception about when Kemp came to the UK

After TheFallenCrowd was blocked today for a 3RR violation an IP deleted the same material and added a claim that Kemp only came to the UK in 2007, sourced to Kemp's blog. However, this is clearly incorrect as he was working for the BNP in June 2004.[1]. His Ancestry visa doesn't prove he wasn't in the UK earlier and of course we know he was. Dougweller (talk) 12:59, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

And Kemp's claim to have emigrated in 2007 is probably literally correct, but as we know he was in the UK in 2004 it's just as likely that 2007 is when he invoked his right of ancestry, thus 'emigrating' without necessarily having left the UK since 2004 or earlier. Dougweller (talk) 15:59, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Bolding Ostara Publications...

As Ostara Publications redirects to Arthur Kemp (my edit), I bolded Ostara Publications, as per Redirect#What needs to be done on pages that are targets of redirects?

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Arthur Kemp. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090904071706/http://tv.bnp.org.uk/2009/05/a-look-behind-the-scenes-at-euro-depot/ to http://tv.bnp.org.uk/2009/05/a-look-behind-the-scenes-at-euro-depot

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:22, 9 July 2017 (UTC)