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 delete. It seems like some people are working under a misconception of how Wikipedia establishes notability. It is usually not so much important what a subject has written, but what others have written about the subject (c.f WP:GNG), and based on the discussion here there is very little of the latter. Plus, with some of the sources there is a question of reliability and independence that have not been addressed; not all radio stations are reliable and things authored by an article subject are not evidence of notability.

Incidentally, I am pretty certain that WP:BLPCOI is primarily about people editing biographies of people they are in dispute with, not simply a matter of "knowing" a biography subject, and while often ill-advised it is often appropriate to extend a certain courtesy to article subjects editing their own articles per WP:BLPKIND. Finally, stop speculating on the motives of editors who nominated the article for deletion, thanks. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:19, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Marcus Stead[edit]

Marcus Stead (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

• AfD - The article is highly autobiographical as per WP:AUTOBIO and has signs of WP:NOR due to the absence of third party sources. Even the photograph of the subject is a self portrait, which the article creator User:NeilA1978 claims he created, which is highly unlikely unless 'Neil' is Marcus himself. I believe that the subject was responsible for recreating this article after its earlier deletion.
  It lacks WP:NPOV due to reference to a number of personal facts about the individual which are unverified, and the entire article has instances of unverifiability WP:VERIFY due to reliance on sources written by the subject. I have searched for additional sources but there are none I can see that verify much of the unreferenced information, and what little is out there was written by the subject or by organisations he is linked with, likely also self authored.
  The IP edits indicate that the subject is actively editing this article himself and the article was previously deleted in 2008 due to the same concerns about self editing, which probably indicates that much of the current article is self written.
  The subject is not sufficiently notable as per WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE and WP:GNG and his career is not publicly notable, aside from work for low listenership radio stations, minor podcasts, and expressing views on current affairs. Fundamentally, the reasons for deletion of the 2008 article have not been at all resolved in this recreated article, it’s contents remain unremarkable Llemiles (talk) 10:23, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.
Llemiles (talk) 10:23, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Llemiles (talk) 10:23, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment – Please be aware as above that Wikipedia deletion pages are not a ballot, and despite the number of comments below from duplicate IP users and accounts with few or no previous edits on Wikipedia, the merits for deletion will be judged on the basis of the discussion, not the tally of Delete or Keep votes. Thank you.
• Delete as the subject is not notable. Mccapra (talk) 12:38, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete we have to make enforcement against autobios an ironclad situation.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:01, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I do not think that this article from The Independent is adequate to establish notability. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:12, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I first became aware of Marcus Stead in the early 2000s when he was on the Youth Committee of a National Political Party from whence he rose to management of the Party with executive authority for the Welsh Regional, which returned 4 MEPs to the EU Parliament, 40 MPs to Westminster and 60 members to the Regional Assembly. since which time he has written at least 3 separate authoritative biographies of well-known sporting personalities, which have had regular updates and have remained in print for at least 12 years. Stead is an extensively published freelance journalist with polemics on sport and other issues and several obituary articles for both broadsheets and red tops both nationally and in Welsh parochial papers. Stead is often used by minority media such as a stint as a sports pundit and commentator on BBC and other stations and has had regular slots on such outlets as LBC, Talk Radio, Radio Sputnik and the like. Stead writes authoritatively and factually on numerous subjects, many articles have appeared on the internet both factual and opinion on various other organisation's and individual's sites. A mark of the caliber of his writing and factual accuracy can be found at [1] - a lengthy polemic with extensive links and provenance presenting the history of Wales and the Welsh language and the divisive and damaging nature of Nationalism and the racist policy cloaked by the compulsory teaching of Welsh the minority language of at best 10% of the population which seemingly acts to damage the career path and wellbeing of the 90% majority in Wales. That Stead has increasingly become a figure of note is indisputable as evidenced by the largely foul-mouthed minority cult who seek to bully and abuse him on social media and try to make mischief for him in a criminal manner currently under investigation by the British Police!
  'per exempio':
  User: Cullen 328 selects as an example advocating Deletion a single Tweet entry by Stead which gave rise to this article from the failed The Independent, which no longer has a print presence but numerous other mainstream print National press republished and extensively commented on his viewpoint as did numerous broadcasters.
  If Wikipedia aims to only publish listings on people who pander to populism with flattery and inaccuracy you will, of course, wish to delete Stead's presence - However, if Wikipedia is to maintain its value as a reference source the verdict will be Keep however large the cult/mob seeking to silence the truth! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.120.200.160 (talk) 02:04, 28 August 2019 (UTC) — 165.120.200.160 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — 165.120.200.160 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment – IP editor, you have failed to bring forward any links to independent, reliable sources that devote significant coverage to Stead and his life and work. Journalists do not gain notability on Wikipedia by getting lots of articles they wrote published. Notable journalists are the subject of significant coverage. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:15, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Being on a Youth Committee or in Party management is not notable
    The 3 biographies are not considered objectively authoratitive. They have not been reported in any third party publications, and instead this article heavily relies on Marcus' Amazon seller page for credibility
    Marcus has not been discussed or covered in any major publications that are referenced in this article, other than the Guardian obituaries column. Not notable.
    Your final point relies on the "damaging nature of Nationalism" and the "compulsory teaching of Welsh" among other theories. These are not evidence of why he is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. Having an opinion does not make you notable.
    I am concerned that you share the same IP 165.120.200.160 with the below user who expressed distinctly similar views to your own. This intervention may indicate further self editing or astroturfing by the subject or those with a conflict of interest with him. Llemiles (talk) 15:18, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – per Cullen. Article requires more coverage in independent third-party sources -- which it does not have. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 06:11, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – Do you deliberately overlook authorship of 3 separate books still in print, participation in and a leadership role in a political party, regular commentaries on radio, a long term involvement in snooker where he is the main pillar of a monthly snooker magazine, instances of commentary in Britain & overseas of international sports events. That you have failed to trace but a fraction of Stead's output is no measure of his achievements the failure hardly justifies clamoring for deletion of his entry. As none of the Stead entry seems to have been by his authorship, understandably external links may be limited - I for one am not inclined to work for Wikipedia tracing the accuracy of their facts and providing sources and links. I for one have a life and do not see myself nitpicking over the copious examples of inaccuracy to be found in Wikipedia - I rarely use it as a source due to its inaccuracies as a result of individuals and organisations not infrequently altering postings on a commercial basis and for gain rather than in consideration of veracity. We are all well aware of the $/£Bns spent by politicians, their parties and lobby groups placing false news and spin on their own entries and those of others. There is no doubt that Stead has been an outspoken and well publicised journalist and commentator and in his field is clearly an authority with a career expectation of at least another 30 years ahead of him as an author and commentator. I have met him once many years ago when a witness to a Court caseand was sufficiently impressed with his knowledge and abilities to follow his career ever since. I would strongly advovate, minded of his achievements to date, that Wikipedia Keep his entry and whatch it grow over the years ahead and perhaps a competent researcher will opt to infill the gaps you have on this page pointed out, one with time and ability to spare! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.120.200.160 (talk) 13:27, 28 August 2019 (UTC) — 165.120.200.160 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment – You confirm you know Marcus. That is a violation of WP:BLPCOI and you should not be making any edits to the article. Having books in publication is not uncommon or notable. They lack any coverage in third party media aside from Marcus' Amazon seller page which is unreliable
    His political, radio, and snooker hobbies are not sufficiently notable. Again, there is complete absence of third party coverage of these.
    Absence of referencing was the cause of deletion in 2008 and it is very concerning that an IP account with snooker edits (curious that) created the article again with no new third party referencing of note.
    165.120.200.160 - you refer to "working" for Wikipedia. We are all volunteers. The result is that the quality of Wikipedia must be vigilantly maintained, and articles which do not meet verifiability and notability rules must be removed. I am sure this article can be revisited once third party sources discuss Marcus for more notable activities, should he do so.
    I am concerned that you share the same IP 165.120.200.160 with the above user who expressed distinctly similar views to your own. This intervention may indicate further self editing or astroturfing by the subject or those with a conflict of interest with him. Llemiles (talk) 15:18, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Marcus Stead has a sizeable media presence as a journalist. The Wikipedia page could do with improving in some ways but it's worth keeping. Stead has experienced a considerable amount of abuse on social media from Welsh nationalist campaigners in recent weeks and it seems likely the individual who started this discussion page seeking deletion is linked to that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.148.129.106 (talk) 22:03, 31 August 2019 (UTC) — 5.148.129.106 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment – Please sign your comments with your details in future. I again note you are an IP user with less than a dozen edits, which raises issues with your trustworthiness. As for your accusations against myself and other users here, they are completely baseless and you should remove it. I have no history or connection with Marcus and have never followed or observed his commentaries. It is for that reason that I nominated the article for deletion - he is not sufficiently notable, and appears to have created this page for self publicity and advertising. Llemiles (talk) 22:47, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - First of all, I should make it clear that I am NOT Marcus Stead. He is a former colleague of mine who I worked with during the early part of this decade. We meet up from time to time, usually when I visit the Cardiff area. I think there is enough distance between us to fulfil Wikipedia's criteria. I created a Wikipedia page in his name because he has a substantial and growing presence in the UK media.
  Secondly, and as others have said, I believe this attempt to get this Wikipedia page deleted came about maliciously. The discussion on deletion was launched within an hour of a group of Welsh nationalists discussing his Wikipedia page on Twitter. The person who started this discussion had edited many Wikipedia articles before this point, but they were all related to his/her interest in railways. It seems very odd indeed that he/she should start a deletion discussion on Marcus Stead within an hour of a group of Welsh nationalist campaigners debating it on Twitter.
  Thirdly, I have edited just ONE snooker page in my life. That was for a Cardiff-based professional player who I know personally. Millions of people in Britain and around the world enjoy snooker, so to imply that this means I am either Marcus or working for him is absurd.
  Fourthly, Marcus certainly does work in snooker journalism. His work has appeared in every edition of Snooker Scene magazine since June 2011. The magazine can easily be obtained from larger newsagents or via the magazine's app. He has also covered the sport for radio and has commentated on online tournaments.
  I have added additional sources as the founder of this discussion page requested. I was not aware that including links to Amazon pages went against Wikipedia rules, and can still find no evidence that this is the case. However, I have provided alternative links. It was also the case that the founder of this discussion put 'citation needed' notices on to an excessive extent, often for points that were clarified and linked to further down the page.

In conclusion, I see no grounds at all for deleting this page, as the subject is significantly well-known. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NeilA1978 (talk • contribs) 18:54, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment – I agree with those who've said that this discussion has come about as a result of abuse Marcus Stead has received from Welsh nationalists on social media. I don't know much about his work in sport as it's not my scene, but I frequently listen to him discussing political matters on the radio (including international radio) and have read his political work in various publications. There is no cause for removing Marcus's Wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ASKHW77 (talk • contribs) 00:21, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – What all of these inexperienced "keep" voters have failed to do is bring forth links to any significant coverage of Stead in reliable, independent sources. Such sources are an absolute requirement for keeping a Wikipedia biography. So, yes there is cause for deletion: the lack of acceptable references to significant coverage of Stead in reliable independent sources, whether in the article, or in this deletion debate. Disagree with deletion? Furnish the sources and the article will be kept. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:19, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – His Wikipedia page includes links to Radio Sputnik, a radio station with bases across the world, and has a global audience. The Guardian is one of Britain's best-known newspapers. WH Smith is probably Britain's best-known newsagents. These are reputable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NeilA1978 (talk • contribs) 21:04, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - NeilA1978, you confirm you know Marcus. That is a violation of WP:BLPCOI and you should not be making any edits to the article nor to the snooker article you describe, of an individual you know. You appear to have a conflict of interest, and my concern is that you may even be Marcus himself, based on the image you have uploaded.
    Wikipedia has worked closely with the Chartered Institute of Public Relations and they have produced guidance which is informative for individuals who are concerned about their information on Wikipedia, and how it is presented.
    Marcus has not followed their guidance, which is for one to create a named account (e.g. 'Marcus Stead') to discuss the article in the talk page and refrain from actual edits. Marcus has frequently tweeted about this Wikipedia page in recent weeks, however, so he is interested in how this deletion goes.
    This says a lot, if he is not engaging directly and openly with this page. It raises, in my mind, the question of whether he is linked to a number of highly unusual edits to this page and the article, from duplicate IPs with no previous history of Wikipedia editing. These are all serious red flags associated with an individual editing their own page.
    My edits are not limited to the railways, but I would love to know how you feel I am connected to Welsh nationalism. I often find those interested in the railways come from all political pursuasions, and none.
    None of the work you describe has answered the question - why is it notable? These are fringe radio stations and papers with low readership. The Guardian obituaries column included. Citation needed tags can be removed when you feel there is a citation. I look forward to you improving the page through use of reliable impartial third party sources.Llemiles (talk) 18:53, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment This discussion is starting to get very silly. Yes, I 'know' Marcus, but I don't have any great vested interest in him. He is a former colleague of mine who I see from time to time when we visit our respective areas. I have also spent time around Prince Harry and 'know' the Secretary of State for Wales, Alun Cairns to talk to. Does this mean I shouldn't edit their Wikipedia pages if I consider it appropriate to do so? I follow Marcus on Twitter and can't see a single reference to his Wikipedia page so your claim that he 'frequently tweeted about his Wikipedia page' is blatantly untrue. To my knowledge, he doesn't edit on Wikipedia at all. You refer to Radio Sputnik as a 'fringe radio station'. It is a global radio station that employs well-known public figures including George Galloway and Jon Gaunt. The Guardian is a widely-read British newspaper that has existed since 1821 and today has a circulation of more than 134,000. The timing of your quest to get this page deleted coincided with Welsh nationalists tweeting about the page, which suggests dark forces are at work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NeilA1978 (talk • contribs) 20:37, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – I've been aware of Marcus's work as a journalist for some years. Some of his work is certainly controversial but he has enough of a public presence to merit a Wikipedia page. I note that further links have been added to verify information recently, but for some reason the links to his work on Talk Podcasts has been removed - I see no reason for this. As others have said, it seems a bit of a coincidence that this discussion about deletion came about at a time when he was receiving unpleasant messages from Welsh nationalists on social media. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:A028:9D00:6482:888F:84E0:6614 (talk) 20:43, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – "Public presence" does not make someone eligible for a Wikipedia article. Significant coverage in independent, reliable sources is required. Please point out that coverage. As for Welsh nationalists, I live in California, have no known Welsh ancestry, and am not active on Twitter. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:55, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – I refer you to my earlier comment. His Wikipedia page includes links to Radio Sputnik, a radio station with bases across the world, and has a global audience. The Guardian is one of Britain's best-known newspapers. WH Smith is probably Britain's best-known newsagents. These are reputable sources. With all due respect, since you are in California, you may not be aware of these brands. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NeilA1978 (talk • contribs) 21:05, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Hello 2A02:C7F:A028:9D00:6482:888F:84E0:6614. I'm curious, you have no previous edits on Wikipedia. Was there anything in particular that motivated you to come and contribute to this discussion? I removed the Talk Podcasts links as, much like the links to Marcus' Amazon seller page, they are unnotable and had the appearance of self advertising a product rather than offering a third party, verifiable, and independent discussion on his notability. If you feel there is content to be added to the article from major sources discussing Marcus, please add them. The purpose of this deletion discussion is the fact I could not find any major outlets discussing Marcus as a notable person. Llemiles (talk) 18:53, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – I agree with those who've said that this discussion has come about as a result of abuse Marcus Stead has received from Welsh nationalists on social media. I don't know much about his work in sport as it's not my scene, but I frequently listen to him discussing political matters on the radio (including international radio) and have read his political work in various publications. There is no cause for removing Marcus's Wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baron von Greenback (talk • contribs) 21:19, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Hello Baron von Greenback. I'm curious, you have no previous edits on Wikipedia. I can assure you, there have been no established links between Delete voters on this page and Welsh nationalism. If you see any, please do bring it to our attention. I would contend that you are wrong, as Marcus is not discussed on major radio stations and has few and far between third party, verifiable, and independent details available on any major websites. I would be surprised if he is an individual who is frequently accessible to international radio listeners as there is no evidence for this in the article or online, other than the fringe radio station Radio Sputnik (a station of debatable impartiality itself). If you feel there is content to be added to the article from major sources discussing Marcus, please add them. The purpose of this deletion discussion is the fact I could not find any major outlets discussing Marcus as a notable person. Llemiles (talk) 18:53, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – I live in Canada and have been following Marcus Stead's political writing and broadcasting for some time. He is a reputable journalist with a public profile. The links on his Wikipedia page are all to recognised outlets. I don't see any case for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ASKHW77 (talk • contribs) 00:10, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Hello ASKHW77. I'm curious, you have no previous edits on Wikipedia. Marcus does not appear on major websites, his books have not been discussed or reviewed in major papers, and he does not have a major profile as a journalist aside from writing in the Guardian obituaries column (a low profile role with low readership). This is why the article is nominated for deletion. If you feel there is content to be added to the article from major sources discussing Marcus, please add them. The purpose of this deletion discussion is the fact I could not find any major outlets discussing Marcus as a notable person. Llemiles (talk) 18:53, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment To repeat what I said above, The Guardian does NOT have a low readership. It is Britain's best-known liberal/left formerly 'broadsheet' newspaper, has existed since 1821, and has a circulation of more than 124,000. Marcus has written both property features and obituaries for The Guardian.
  • Comment Are obituary writers now the standard for notability on Wikipedia, or having one article in a paper once? I was on television once. Perhaps I should have a wikipedia page. Llemiles (talk) 21:35, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Of the sources listed, all are self published. Even the one from The Guardian looks like it was written by Marcus Stead (I admit I didn't read the entire thing, but when it started with a picture of Marcus and proceeded to be in first person, I determined it was not reliable). Rockphed (talk) 18:30, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There seems to be no picture pertinent to The Guardian link - I don't understand the seemingly biased efforts to delete, which read akin to a vendetta, could it be, since at least one campaigner against Marcus Stead lives in Newport with a penchant for train spotting that you could well be actively campaigning due to views widely published by Marcus Stead - in view of the fact that the efforts to remove Stead have apparently been orchestrated subsequent to conversation in public media in the hour prior on Social Media, if for no other reason, I believe, to show itself unwilling to pander to bullying Wikipedia should Keep Marcus Stead
  • Comment The Guardian link on the Wikipedia page links to Stead's work from The Guardian, but that's the point - it shows he has worked for them as both an obituaries writer and for property features.

• • Keep I see no reason at all to delete Stead's Wikipedia page. It consists of a fair and accurate outline of who he is, backed up by reputable sources. That should really be the end of the matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.198.21 (talk) 21:39, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• • Keep I believe those who sought to vituperatively orchestrate a campaign against Marcus Stead have been their own worst enemy - showing just how consequential Marcus Stead is which alone shows why 'Wikipedia should Keep Stead

I note a supporter of delete has resorted to the dishonest ruse of seeking to repeatedly imply Marcus Stead has written his own entry which is clearly without substantiation of substance. An implication he/she or it has repeated in one form or another about other individuals who have advocated Keep such as myself even seeking to belittle my comments to Keep because I have not obfuscated my identity by using various ISP numbers, which is an easy achievement but using the ISP my WiFi has selected, I am belittled for being insignificantly interested in being an anorak signed in to nit-pick over articles on Wikipedia as a job working for Wikipedia, be that for income or otherwise! Keep is clearly my view as Marcus Stead is far more widely published and publicised than many other entries many of which may well be self-authored, and frequently edited by staff and supportive vested interests, in a manner this entry clearly has not been, despite the desperate and dishonest efforts of some campaigning for deletion, campaigners who have gone so far as to orchestrate implications Marcus Stead has both lied and promoted himself, of which I see no compelling evidence. Minded of the facts I and others have independently posted and the dishonesty of some who have orchestrated a campaign against him I contend that Wikipedia should Keep the entry and remove the spurious claims for repetitive provenance of citations that have been and are clearly verifiable.

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.