Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Steadman (second 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 of the debate was KEEP. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 01:10, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Robert Steadman

vanity article Crusading composer 01:29, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep. A search for "Robert Steadman" yields 234 unique hits, but the article suggests he's sufficiently notable. Royboycrashfan 02:33, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Notable enough, considering that the BBC covers his work. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:41, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strong and Speedy Keep. This article was nominated for AfD in October 2005 and easily survived. This nomination, like that one, is made in bad faith. The nominator has engaged in a series of POV edits on the article, has relentlessly attacked and criticized the subject, and in fact, his user name itself -- Crusading composer -- is a direct reference to Steadman (who has been called that due to his political activism). Take a look at his contributions, and the vast majority are to this article, its talk page and related pages. I don't know if he and Bakewell Tart (the user who made the original nomination) are sockpuppets of each other or not, but the nomination and comments are pretty much congruent. As for the substantive matter, please see the original AfD; there is no question at all of Steadman's notability and the encyclopedic nature of the article. It has been edited by many editors; it is clearly not authored by the subject or on his behalf. This AfD, like the last one, is simply the escalation of an edit war by one of Steadman's dedicated wiki-enemies. This is a repeated waste of our time and I think an RfC against Crusading composer for edit warring and abuse of AfD is appropriate here. MCB 03:10, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  • The non-autobio assertion is very questionable: two of the protagonists on this article's talk page have lately been established as R. Steadman sockpuppets by checkuser, and indefinitely blocked as such (despite their denials at the time of any personal involvement). So let's keep speculation as to whether BT and CC are the same person in perspective. (My personal guess is not -- as CC implied, if s/he's made two AFD nominations, s/he's getting worse with practice at the technical details; Though equally that they have similar TES-messageboard-inspired motivations.) Most of the article itself was written from anon IP addresses. (My personal guess is, belonging to one Robert Steadman, or some closely involved person.) Actual notability seems to me marginal, but not non-existent, though hardly as clearly established as the above claims. Alai 03:49, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Are you going to be WP:BOLD re WP:RFC or are you just expressing an opinion? Garglebutt / (talk) 06:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep. Well known in musical circles especially for his choral work; first AfD bore this out. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 03:12, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I concur the nomination appears to be in bad faith; prompted by edit warring with the associated WP editor. Garglebutt / (talk) 06:12, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, seems notable enough for me. VegaDark 07:27, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep, as noted above there are enough "non wikipedia echo" hits from google to justify an article. SOPHIA 08:07, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 09:31, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep, notable. --Terence Ong 10:32, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep as bad-faith nomination.  (aeropagitica)  11:12, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep as bad-faith nomination. _└^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 13:23, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep; bad-faith/vandalous nomination. Monicasdude 14:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep, as per above - bad-faith nomination, like the first time. (Though I personally do agree with Alai's suspicions above that much of the article was written by Mr. Steadman himself, the article shouldn't be deleted.) --Oscillate 15:43, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Robert Steadman is notable, therefore this is not a vanity article. His Imposingness, the Grand Moff Deskana (talk) 19:33, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete

I cannot see how this can be classed as a bad faith nomination and I am amazed that someone has asked for me to be blocked because I have attempted to draw attention to a blatant abuse of Wiki's policies. I also find it surprising that I have been accused of edit wars. If the editor who thinks that was to actually look at the history of the Robert Steadman website, they'd find that I have been accomodating to others’ views, have compromised and have refrained from reverting the same points. Some editors have referred to the previous attempt to delete this article. This was nothing to do with me. I voted to delete it but so what? That attempt failed. Yes Mr Steadman has a presence on the internet, most of it self initiated. Regardless of whether Mr Steadman is notable or not, that is NOT the issue here. This deletion is not about notability but about Wiki policies.

• • Reasons for deletion:

If (and I mean IF) Mr Steadman has beenn guilty of using sock puppets and multiple identities – particularly vhjh then there is good reason for deleting this article: 1. This is clearly a vanity article. It was created mainly by the subject. Two of the contributors have been revealed as sock puppets and have been permanently blocked. At least 2 more have made enough mistakes to be suspected of having clear links to the subject. This article was created for one purpose only - shameless self publicity and perhaps even as a way of increasing the subject's business. 2. The truthfulness of the article is in doubt. Much of the material comes from the subject's own website. The subject himself has shown himself to be less than honest over the last few months and this casts a strong doubt over whether the content can be trusted. 3. The subject clearly feels that he has ownership of the article. Attempts to edit the article have been constantly reverted. Sock puppets have been used to bully other editors, to smear and insult them. The subject's behaviour on the Jesus article shows that he is inflexible and totally unwilling to compromise. It is obvious that there can be no neutral POV when the subject himself takes such a strong interest in his own article and will use deceit to ensure that it remains a shrine to his own ego. If indeed these editors are sock puppets of Mr Steadman (and the administrators are the ones who have decided that – I have not seen the evidence) there can be no real doubt as to whether this article has to be deleted. It is not a case of NOTABILITY. It is a matter of a breakdown of trust and good faith and repeated abuses of Wiki guidelines and p;oicies. This article, regardless of content, cannot be allowed to remain. I suggest that this article be deleted and if any of the editors who voted to keep this article really feel that the subject warrants an article then THEY could create one that does not breach wiki guidelines. It seems fair to me.Crusading composer 19:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep... if indeed this is a WP:AUTO, Mr. Steadman deserves a smack upside the head for being a jackass, but it doesn't make him less notable as a subject. Meets WP:MUSIC.--Isotope23 21:21, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Not mentioned in the New Grove, but does seem sufficiently notable. AnnH ♫ 21:32, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
• speedy keep this article please Yuckfoo 00:05, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Sockpuppeting oneself's article, no matter how much of a rulebreaking endeavor that may be, does not automatically warrent page deletion. Homestarmy 00:18, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• If this is kept, we may need a disambiguation page as there is a notable composer of the same name. [1]. The BBC material is verifiable evidence that he is an active British composer whose music is being performed so I will vote Keep. It doesn't meet the criterion for a speedy keep in my book. Capitalistroadster 00:30, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Ah... you mean a "notable cinematographer of the same name", yes? :-) MCB 02:20, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. Yes this article violates WP:AUTO as much of the content has been added by confirmed sockpuppets of Mr. Steadman himself, but the article is on a reasonably known British composer whom readers may want to read about. —Aiden 02:22, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable enough. If there's a POV issue in here, be bold and fix it. 23skidoo 15:58, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep per previous AfD. This is a grudge thing. AndyJones 21:52, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep or speedy keep, the nominator's edits are solely related to Robert Steadman and are sure to raise some eyebrows. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 23:15, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete*. Robert Steadman is not notable. The verifiable performances are unexceptional. More evidence is needed of his work. The is a lack of secondary source - reviews etc Kotuku. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kotuku (talk • contribs). User's only two contributions have been to this deletion discussion — _└^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 13:08, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep subject of article is of the minimal range of notability.--MONGO 11:50, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. According to Evelyn Glennie (Order of the British Empire)'s web page she commissioned three pieces by this composer in 1989-90. [2]

His publisher listed on that page, Vanderbeek & Imrie Ltd, is listed as a member of the Music Publishers Association of the UK [http://www.mpaonline.org.uk/dist/v.html. There's an email there to verify what else is in their catalogue. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Beth Wellington (talk • contribs) 2006-03-07 09:35:53.

Thanks for adding the signature, was about to do so, as I omitted it in my hurry to save the page before the library computer logged off.--Beth Wellington 22:52, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

• Strong and Speedy Delete. Robert Steadman is not notable. This fact is irrefutable --User:Njd123 22:41, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

User has 13 total edits, 2 to the Article namespace — _└^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 23:41, 7 March 2006 (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.