Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Steadman

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep, after it was closed early on the grounds that it was a bad-faith nomination by two editors who are here only to attack its subject. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:25, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Steadman

There is no evidence that the subject is notable such as to merit retention of this article in any form Bakewell Tart 21:36, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. - Bakewell Tart 21:36, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong and Speedy Keep Bakewell Tart and Crusading Composer have a complete and unhealthy fixation with belittling the subject of this page: [1] [2] Should such a fixation lead to a page being deleted? Also he's composed for the Royal Philharmonic Orchestra, Evelyn Glennie, written operas with libretti by John Masefield and Richard Adams - shall I go on? Maybe not a household name but he's done enough to be included.
  • Strong and Speedy Keep. They have also been trying to remove all the justified links in other pages so that it appears Steadman only appears in this one article. This is a huge manipulation of Wikipedia - inexperienced and new editors, with a fixation and, it seems, out to make a name for themselves. I wonder if they know the subject of the article in real life and are trying to have a go? It seems somewhat like that. 86.137.230.153 21:43, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong and Speedy Keep. I assert that this nomination was made in bad faith. Bakewell Tart has made only 14 edits, all of which were to the article in question, its talk page, or this AfD. He/she has been involved in an edit war and has at least twice deleted most of the information in the article, and appears to have a POV vendetta against the subject. And for the record, there is no question of the subject's notability; he is a major figure in the UK contemporary composing scene, as well as his academic career, covered in other sources, widely reviewed, etc. MCB 21:47, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Steadman may not be the most famous composer in the world but he is reasonably well known and has written commissioned pieces for the likes of Evelyn Glennie (http://www.evelyn.co.uk/COMMISSIONS.htm) which puts him in pretty exalted company. -
    Just zis Guy, you know? 21:58, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Also very concerning that the two editors who have caused so much trouble with this article have usernames which relate to the subject of the article? He is a composer and he teaches in Bakewell? There is something not right about this - further investigation is needed.
Whoah! I'm not bothered either way. I am not out to get Mr Steadman. In fact, I had thought that I had done a good job in tidying up one of the paragraphs - none of the 'official' editors minded enough to change it. The only edits I have made are regarding 'educationailst' - Mr Steadman's 'official' editors don't seem to know what the word means. As far as I was concerned, the curtailing of the article was sanctioned by Mr Steadman himself as a way of heading off further vandalism. I'm new to this but I am fed up of the way that User:86.137.230.153 keeps on calling me a vandal. I have made what I consider to be fair edits - not vandalism. I have deleted Mr Steadman's name from various lists - there seems to be some kind of confusion - getting your name on as many wikipedia pages as possible isn't evidence of notability - User:86.137.230.153 seems to think that I am trying to make him seem less famous - surely it is this page and this page alone that determines whether he is notable and whether he deserves to be on the lists. Since Mr Steadman himself asked for the article to be deleted, I am sure that my actions won't be unswelcome.

It seems to me that if the subject has requested deletion then the opinion of someone who claims to have no contact or authority shouldn't override that decision. It seems a bit... unhealthy to me to have someone laying out every detail of your life when you have not asked them to do so. I think that the shortened article was much more appropriate - especially considering that Mr steadman has been receiving hate mail at his home - I'd think that he'd want to reduce the amount of VERY personal information availbale on the internet. I'll admit that I haven't edited anything outside of the articles above - but i'm a bit overwhelmed. I seem to spend a lot of time reading articles and have found nothing else that I feel knowledgable enough to edit. I haven't changed any facts just removed some inconsistencies.Crusading composer 22:41, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain your knowledge of Steadman and where it comes from? How do you know he has receive "hate mail" at his house? Again this post by Crusading Composer doesn't really ring true, in my opinion. There is something very fishy going on. 86.137.230.153 22:49, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Check this link: http://www8.tes.co.uk/section/staffroom/thread.aspx?story_id=2144403&path=/Opinion/&messagePage=1&messageID=1179183#message1179183

There is no doubt that Robsteadman is Robert Steadman. He has referred other posters to his website,. He shares the same emailadrress as the website andhHe has downloaded music to those who have asked for it. He has been claiming to be Mr Steadman for many years and has even threatened legal action for libel when his 'easily identifiable' name has been libelled. In all this time, there have been no complaints to the TES administrators that Robsteadman is not Robert Steadman and has stolen his identity. I have no reason to believe that Mr steadman is NOT Robsteadman.Crusading composer 23:55, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have absolutely no clue about the particulars of Steadman's life and whatnot, but it doesn't take a lot of Googling to figure out that the subject merits an article. A look in the edit history of the article in questions leads me to believe that this is a bad-faith nomination, (and frankly, edits to an article about a composer with summaries that refer to "delusions of grandeur", made by someone with the username of "Crusading Composer" don't exactly convince me of NPOV, either). But that's really beside the point; the question here is whether or not this article should exist. Yes, it should. Strong and speedy keep. Anything beyond that is something to be discussed on the article's talk page, not the AfD. -- Captain Disdain 23:58, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


I'm pretty sure that I mentioned that I have no particular view either way. I have not been trying to get the article removed. I only wanted the original article to be balanced. I'm OK with the shortened article - I have even helped to improve it. That's hardly the attitude of someone hell bent on destruction, is it? If the article IS retained - which seems likely, then I hope that it has the shorter format. If the longer format is restored, I hope that someone points out to the other editors, that EVERYBODY has the right to add comments and, as long as they are not offensive or untrue, they shouldn't be deleted just because you want an article to only show the subject in glowing terms.Crusading composer 00:07, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you could answer the above question by 86.137.230.153 as to where your knowledge of Steadman comes from. It seems that your only contribution's to Wikipedia have been to remove information from his article. Yes, of course everyone should be able to contribute to the article, but you yourself just said that info "not offensive or untrue", "shouldn't be deleted". So why, exactly were you favouring the reduction of the article with removal of large chunks of information? Information which I don't think could be in much doubt as to be factually accurate. Providing your additions remain written with a neutral point of view, are factually accurate, and encylopedic, I see no reason why they should be removed. Your removing of large chunks of text with no real justification, however, will not be accepted. I suggest you make any further issues regarding the removal or addition of information to the article on it's talk page. UkPaolo 08:25, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You are confusing me with someone else. I haven't removed large chunks of anyone's page. I like the short article.Crusading composer 11:32, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I do, however, think that we should follow the wishes of the subject of this article. I do believe that he has made a formal request to have this article deleted? Perhaps I'm not following the links correctly - I am new.Crusading composer 00:10, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If Tony Blair requested an article on himself be removed from an encyclopedia, would you oblige? I would doubt the authenticity of any such requests by Steadman, himself, but even if they were made I fail to see why we should comply when all the information given is already in the public domain. UkPaolo 08:25, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - since when is it up to the subject of an article to ask for its deletion? This does strike me as a bad faith nomination - a new editor who has only edited one page on one subject asking fro it to be deleted. Steadman is no major fgiure but, gtom a quick google, has done a number of noteworthy things. 86.136.234.112 07:52, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Actually, no. I mean, certainly, he's well within his rights to ask for removal of truly personal and private information (home addresses, phone numbers and whatnot), but taking a quick look at the edit history, I haven't seen anything of the sort there. Public information is fair game; as a somewhat prominent public figure, he's in no position to demand the removal of an encyclopedia article about him any more than, say, George W. Bush or Marilyn Manson is. Frankly, the assertion that an encyclopedia article featuring such intimate facts as how many symphonies he has composed or where he works puts him at risk is ridiculous, particularly as just about the same facts can be discovered from Steadman's own website. (And if he's getting threatening letters, it seems to me that anything Wikipedia says is completely beside the point, too, since clearly the culprits already know enough about him.) And finally, if Robert Steadman has a problem with his Wikipedia article, perhaps Robert Steadman or someone who provably represents him can deal with it. Instead of, say, some guy on the internet. -- Captain Disdain 00:36, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
A request by a subject to have the article about them deleted is not a factor in deciding to retain or delete the article, as I explained on the Talk page, and I believe that fairly reflects Wikipedia policy and practice. It is the identical situation as with the news media; you can't tell The Times not to write a story about you. And in Steadman's case, it is clearly not the case that he is trying to hide from public note, but that the article about him has been repeated vandalized, in some cases in an actionably defamatory way. And as I explained, the remedy for that is not deletion, but vigilance on the part of editors to revert vandalism promptly. MCB 00:50, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have googled the man: His name appears on various lists that link back to his website - all of them lists that allow anybody to access them and add links. As for articles created by third parties that are not anonymous - well therer are less than half a dozen and one of them was concerning a burglary. He's hardly famous in any sense of the word. No, i take that back, he's more well known than I am - at least on the internet. I get around a bit - if wee total the number of people who can say "Yes, I know so and so", it might actually be a larger number than those who have heard of Mr Steadman. Maybe? Probably not.? I have got one article on the net about me, but it's more a case of 'notoriety' rather than 'notability' and I wouldn't want a wiki page about it.00:31, 27 October 2005 (UTC) Crusading composer 00:41, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hardly famous in any sense of the word? According to his website, his work has been a subject of a TVS documentary (Music Makers, 1988) and one of his songs was featured for several weeks on BBC One in 1996, and he's been reviewed in The Guardian and the Nottingham Evening Post. Oh, and we don't just need to take his word for it, since as it happens, Google returns a whole bunch of stuff about him, certainly more than "half a dozen" -- for example, this article at BBC News about his Anne Frank tribute. That's not superstardom by any means, but certainly it's an indication of some fame and popularity. Either you do not Google very well, or you do so with an agenda. Frankly, I suspect the latter. -- Captain Disdain 00:54, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

and did you find evidence of this outside the website?Crusading composer 01:13, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have absolutely no reason to believe that Mr. Steadman lies about things like whether he was reviewed in the Guardian. In fact, if you're accusing him of lying, perhaps you would care to provide some proof of that? This is a guy for whom I easily get a a whole bunch of Google hits that tell me that a) he exists; b) he has indeed composed these works; c) he teaches where he says he teaches; and d) his works have been performed widely enough to meet a reasonable minimum criteria for notability. And yes, I do find it very interesting that you go from defending his privacy and telling sob stories about how he's being sent threatening letters to suddenly implying that he's not even a notable composer and that he's making things up. -- Captain Disdain 01:23, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have googled again and I find that if you arte looking for the composer instead of the actor, you do get about 10 pages of links. If you ignore multiple entries, references in lists set up by anonymous editors, wikipedia and articles that only link to his own website, there are less than half a dozen real articles and most of them are in his local paper. Yes, his name does appear in a lot of newspaper links, but only because he spends alot of time writing ion - they are just comments by him not about him.Crusading composer 01:13, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm quite capable of differentiating between the cinematographer and the composer, thank you, as well as the Wikipedia mirrors and the messages he has left himself on various message boards. It's also worth noting that as he's not working in pop music and most of the reviews noted on his site are from an era where the internet was not as widespread as it is today, Google's effectivenes as a tool of measurement is greatly lessened. Just the same, I refer you to the BBC News article I linked to above. I don't think this guy is a huge name, but as far as modern classical composers go, he's hardly a nobody. -- Captain Disdain 01:23, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You certainly like to twist my words, captain dstain. I'm not accusing Mr Steadman of lying - he is very quick to threaten legal action, so I'm not going there. I merely questioned whether YOU had found evidence to back up these claims. Obviously, you have not. I find no incriguities in my posts. I haven't stated an opinion on mr Steadman's privacy - merely mentioned it and asked if we should respect it. I have my own theory as to why Mr steadman wants this thread pulled, but that's irrelevant. I don't care whether it is pulled or not - anyone can read that above. As to sob stories about hate mail, my personal belief as to whether any was sent is not something I'd like to mention. I merely pointed out that Mr Steadman has claimed to have received some and this may be one reason why Mr Steadman MAY prefer to see this article shortened. The only reason i keep on posting, is that this seems to be a bit one sided. I am presenting an alternative viewpoint. There's nothing personal. I have no hidden agenda. I repeat: I don't care if this page is deleted or not. If it is kept, I hope the short version is adopted and kept to.Crusading composer 02:12, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yeah, sure. You're not accusing him of lying, you just ask if I've found evidence to support the claims on the website. Perhaps there's a reason -- other than implying that they are false claims -- to do so, but you'll forgive me if I can't see what it might be. In any case, thank you for your alternative viewpoint. I think that at this point, you can safely consider it to be rather solidly and comprehensively presented. -- Captain Disdain 02:24, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. glad to be of help.Crusading composer 02:31, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Not sure what the fuss is about, He's certainly no Bach but he's written in a large range of styles, he's been performed a lot and has been recorded. The searching I've done makes a pretty convincing case as do some of the editors on this debate.
    Rx StrangeLove 02:40, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep. Passes the notability bar for me. 23skidoo 05:25, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. This is a very bad faith nomination. As StrangeLove say, not Bach but a significant composer in 21st Centruy classical music scene. vhjhVhjh 06:55, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can I also say I am concerned that Crusading composer is so concerned about Steadman and has done so much to adjust his entry and position on Wikipedia and yet claims this is only for a knowledge gleaned from an internet messageboard! This is very, very odd indeed. vhjhVhjh 06:57, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Very strong keep. What a lot of fuss! I have just spent 10 minutes reading through all that Crusading Composer and Bakewell Tart have said and done re: this article and can only conclude that this is a bad faith nomination. Steadman has had symphonies performed, been reviewed in The Guardian, had a song featured on BBC Radio One, has written for Evelyn Glennie and the Royal Philharmonic Orchestra and has worked with the likes of Richard Adams on an opera. Amazing how some question his notability given just that let alone the large number of performances and commissions he seems to attract. I do wonder why two new editors are so concerned about Steadman that all their Wikipedia efforts have been to reduce his entry here and, ultimately, to remove him. Robeaston99 08:05, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep as per MCB and Robeaston99's arguments. Nomination was clearly made in bad faith from a user involved exclusively with removing information from this article (see [3]). It would also be interesting for an admin to check the IP from where Bakewell Tart and Crusading composer ([4]) have been posted. Both are relatively new to Wikipedia, and both have made edits exclusively to articles pertaining to Robert Steadman such that I'm inclined to think they are likely to be the same person. The usernames, too, seem strange, with one making reference to "composer", and the other to "Bakewell" - the town where Steadman lives. For what it's worth, Steadman's website ([5]) is hosted with BTinternet, so once could possibly guess that the man himself may post from one of BT's numerous IP pools. Anyhow, that's besides the point, since in my opinion Steadman is definitely of sufficient notability to have an article on here. I take issue with the latest (see edit history) changes to the article in trying to drastically reduce the content by those considering him not sufficiently notable. Either he is, and the article contain's as much (factually correct and encyclopedic) info as is contributed, or he's not and it is deleted. As per my post on that talk page, he cannot be deemed notable only enough for a short article. UkPaolo 08:14, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


This is a bit unfair. Just because Bakewell tart and I share an interest in Mr Steadman and have posted only on steadman related articles, it doesn't mean we are the same person. exactly the same thing could be said about vhjh and 86.137.230.153. does that mean that the FOUR of us are the same person in some weird schizophrenic debate? No. I'm going to come down on the side of DELETE today. The reason I have changed my mind is that the major contributors to this article are UNWILLING to allow collaboration. There is no point in saying that the article was created by several users - a simple trawl through their contributions reveals that it is merely one BT use for a week, then another, then another. There is no evidence that an early creator returns later on. No, it's just one IP contributing then dissappearing to be replaced by another. Vhjh and the anonymous editors post on each others pages indicating that there is even a link between vhjh and the anonymous users. A suspicious person might believe that there is only ONE editor. Now this isn't really a probl;em except the person (or persons) who created this site have one agenda - that is to promote Mr Steadman. They do not tolerate any unofficial additions. Edits are quickly reverted and followed with threats that the person will be blocked and calling them vandals. This agenda can be most clearly seen in the attempts of vhjh to keep the article permanently protected. They want the page to be preserved as a shrine to Mr Steadman and to prevent ANY othere edits. They have asked for the power to block/unblock when they wish so that only they can make edits. This is totally against the spirit of Wikipedia. It is for this reason that I suggest the article be removed. I don't trust the editors.Crusading composer 09:47, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just out of interest, this page has attracted 12 contributors. Six of those (myself included) only appear on edit lists relating to Steadmanism. Three of them are Steadman contributors so I question their NPOV and one appears only on this page (is that called a meat puppet?).Crusading composer 09:57, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As you well know the problem with anon posts is that with roaming IPs we have no idea whether the poster has posted on lots of other articles or not - so your claim is, at best, irrelevant. I often forget to log in. Perhaps Crusading Composer and Bakewell Tart could tell us where their interest and knowledge of all things Steadman arises? And why you have such a thing about him? There seem to make a lot of assertions about him and yet provide no evidence whilst attacking others for a similar problem. Shameful behaviour, in my opinion and whoever it was who suggested the admin look into these "two" users was correct. Robeaston99 10:22, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's funny that, you ALWAYS forget to post in on non steadman sites. Pull the other one. I, myself have nothing to hide from admin.Crusading composer 10:47, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You have selective reading skills. I don't have a thing about Mr Steadman. I wanted to make his article more reflective of his ideas and beliefs - information I have gathered by reading his contributions to the TES (yes, he is the same person). My contention isn't with Mr Steadman (who has said that he finds this article embarrassing and would like it deleted), but with the rather fixated steadmanphiles who created this article and are flouting the spirit of Wikipedia by preventing other editors from making changes.Crusading composer 10:47, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting that you criticise others for wanting to do things to the page whilst you have gone out of your way to do as much to extinguish the subject from Wikipedia as possible. I really do not se what links to an internet messageboard achieve - shall we link to every contribution Steadman has made? Why just these ones? Is it for you to grind an axe? I suspect so. And, sorry to have to correct you once more, I didn't say I only forget to sign in on Steadman's pages I rarely remember to sign in when I contribute. I am very concerned about the aggressive tone you are taking and the way you feel that, despite being a new editor, you can buly around other far more experienced editors. I think the best thing is for you to take a step back and consider the ethos of collaboration that Wikipedia is based on. Admin do need to look into your behaviour and that of the "other" user intent on doing damage to this article. Robeaston99 11:00, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I can't see why the AfD has been brought, unless it's for personal reasons; he's obvioulsy notable enough for an article. --Phronima 10:55, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Robeaston, just how am I being 'aggressive'? I was just surprised that you only ever remember to sign in on Steadman pages - otherwise you always forget. That's a bit odd, why do you think that is? I ask you to retract the allegation of bullying - I haven't bullied anyone. Why do you and the other Steadman contributors sound so alike - 'the admin must look into this'? I think that you'll find that the only 'bullying' and threatening ahs been done by someone claiming to be Mr Steadman himself. The most ironic thing you have said is asking me to consider the ethos of collaboration. Let's go back a few weeks - a couple of people made some harmless edits to this article. They were accused of being vandals. This led to an escalation which has seen this article protected twice. That wasn't me, my edits have been reasonable (I still think it reasonable to remove Mr Steadman's name from 'famous' lists until his notability has been established) but I have still been smeared and threatened. One of my edits HAD been allowed to remain for a week - mainly becuase the previous version didn't make sense, but now the article has been restored to its full glory and I doubt that any further collboration will be allowed - evidenced by the attempts by vjhj to get the article permanently protected with access only allowed to him.Crusading composer 11:23, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you - you have had your say on this matter - over and over. STrange how the only two who have asked for deletion are you and Bakewell Tart. There is something very fishy about your fixation with the subject of this article and it does warrant further investigation. You have yet to explain your interest and knowledge in the subject. And why so agitated? If you are so concerned about proper collaboration you woul see that your attempt to smear Mr. Steadman has failed and, might I suggest, it would be appropriate for you to back down and let others have their say. Robeaston99 11:30, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, once a page is on Wikipedia there is no reason why it should be limited as long as the content is factual - whilst an odd revision could be made I think the article fits that description in the long version. As, it seems, do several others. It is not up to you to decide a subject only warrants a short article. Robeaston99 11:32, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

For Bakewell_Tart and Crusading Composer

Please explain the source of your interest and knowledge in Robert Steadman. That might help the rest of us understand why you seem to be so determined to malign him and reduce a perfectly reasonable article to the smallest possible length. Robeaston99 12:12, 27 October 2005 (UTC) (I will also put this on the article's discussion page)[reply]

  • I propose that this entire thread is moved to the article's discussion page and taken off the VfD, since it appears that a strong consensus exists for closing the VfD with keep. No credible reaosn has been advanced for deleting the article (even if the subject didn't want it here, which is debatable, there is nothing stopping him coming here himself and fixing whatever it is he allegedly does not like). There is reasonable evidence that this nomination is in bad faith, there is no dispute regarding the notability of the subject, the article clearly does not meet any of the criteria for deletion, and what argument there is seems to centre on issues which are, on the face of it, largely unrelated to the subject. -
    Just zis Guy, you know? 12:40, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • How very sensible. In the meantime can admin still look into the behaviour of Crusading Composer and Bakewell Tart? Robeaston99 12:43, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes. This would be an excellent move indeed, and thank you for proposing it, Guy. I think it's blatantly obvious that this was a bad faith nomination, and I do think that Composer is being extremely disingenuous here. (I find it a little disappointing that he seems to honestly think that if he just keeps up the pretense and rambles on and on, he'll get his way, despite the fact that the actual votes on the AfD are overwhelmingly on the side of keeping the article and he has been completely unable to dispute Steadman's notability despite the insinuations that Steadman is, in fact, lying on his website.) We have two votes to delete, from Tart and Composer, and twelve to keep, four of which are tagged as "speedy", and frankly, I believe we'd have more keeps if people weren't so put off by the long rants on the AfD. I guess if you dissemble loud enough, it slows things down, at least... -- Captain Disdain 15:16, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, what happens if it is removed from possible deletion? How long before these two can try to do this again? Or just go back to butchering the page? Robeaston99 12:47, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • If they try for deletion again this page will come up as the AfD discussion, which will flag up that it has already been considered and rejected. Personally I think they are wasting their time: if they have genuine issues with Steadman, then document them in a factual and NPOV way and they can stay in. Wikipedia does not require hagoigraphy. -
    Just zis Guy, you know? 12:56, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Robert_Steadman&oldid=1138309756"