This article was nominated for deletion on 26 October 2005. The result of the discussion was keep.
This article was nominated for deletion on 3 March 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject University of Oxford, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the University of Oxford on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.University of OxfordWikipedia:WikiProject University of OxfordTemplate:WikiProject University of OxfordUniversity of Oxford articles
This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter.
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Composers, a group of editors writing and developing biographical articles about composers of all eras and styles. The project discussion page is the place to talk about technical and editorial issues and exchange ideas. New members are welcome!ComposersWikipedia:WikiProject ComposersTemplate:WikiProject ComposersComposers articles
The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.
Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived.
If further archiving is needed, see Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.
I presume this is the same Robert Steadman who accused Wikipedia of being "far from encyclopedic", "litted with inaccuracies", "bordering on the outright trivial", "a joke, a broken experience and one which, if Alan Johnson had any sense, he wold recommend that students avoid" in today's Daily Mail? TomPhil18:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if by any chance this is the same Robert Steadman who has a letter published in this morning's edition of the London Times (page 18 - "Wiki Whacking") - while as in every organization there is scope for improvement - to use the articles on religion (always a controversial subject), as an example to make the sweeping statement that Wikipedia is a failed experiment is to rubbish thousands of very good and highly accurate and informative pages on a diversity of subjects. The statement in the Times' letter that many articles are controlled by cabals inserting certain viewpoints is again untrue. The letter mentions Wikipedia having pages on "...every droid or blob ever to appear on star wars" - so what? - so long as there are articles on as many notable people as possible does it matter greatly whether they are on porn stars or daleks - so long as the truly notable, great and notorious are there also. If wikipedia has one great flaw - it is that it does not have an active public relations department to counter negative claims made in the national press. Apologies to all readers if this is not the same Robert Steadman of Matlock, Derbyshire who penned the Times letter. Giano07:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really think there's anyway of finding out if it is the same person. Jimmy acts as the sole public relations guy. ~ UBeR20:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that David Gerard also does some sort of "handling the media" types of duties in the UK, you might want to mention it to him. Since said user was confirmed as having made heavy use of socks to edit this article, it's almost certainly the same person (hence solving the mystery of why we have such a lengthy, detailed article on such a borderline-notable individual: exactly the sort of self-promotion that's another significant problem with Wikipedia, if it comes to that). Of course, this was only uncovered when he was so incautious as to start blatantly vote-stacking on controversial AFDs, with someone with checkuser involved on the opposing side. Oops. It was a long-standing suspicion before that, though. Likewise, he seems to have significant "form" when it comes to stirring it on online fora (though of course the Steadman socks trotted out the "you'll never prove it's me-- I mean, him!" line). Alai16:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If that is the case, should his Wikipedia activities and letters to the press etc noy be included in the wikipdia biography, they are obviously part of his life, so without them the biography is incomplete. Obviously the published, signed and addressed letters can be cited as references. Giano16:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Daily Mail have published a response to Robert Steadman's letter that I sent in defence of Wikipedia in yesterday's edition. For those who did not see it, I pointed out that only a small number of articles are actually affected by the disputes Steadman refers to, that the width of topics is a benefit, and that it is a valuable tool provided that it is used in conjunction with other sources. TomPhil10:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The talk page? Or the article? Even with WP:AGF, I think the anon editor is either Steadman himself or someone closely associated with him. Personally, I don’t see the notability and wonder if it is worth keeping the article. Fob.schools (talk) 11:19, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies for the ambiguity. I was using the talk page to talk about the article. I agree with your assessment of the IP, and I think he is editing in clear violation of WP:COI and WP:AUTO. The article has been up for deletion review before, with a result of Keep. I think that is justified. But these recent edits are not. The question is: what should we do about it? Philip Trueman (talk) 17:46, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It seems he has history as a sockpuppet master. If the subject requested the article deletion for the reason that the anon editor claims - i.e. trauma for the subjects offspring, then I would think the request might be granted. But at the moment the edits seem to be an attempt at sanitisation and should be reverted. Fob.schools (talk) 17:02, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
