Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Robert Steadman (second nomination)

message: So the subject of this article is notable and anything else is irrelevant?  Flouting the policies of Wiki is to be rewarded?
He is SO notable that it appears that he had to create his own article.  Surely, someone notable enough for Wikipedia wouldn't have to do so?  This article is little more than an extension of the subject's website.
As I said, the acid test of his notability would be to delete the article and see whether anybody apart from the subject has enough knowledge and interest to create a new one.Crusading composer 19:45, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wasn't going to comment but as you are both trying to smear my name here whilst triumpanhtly libelling me on TES  I feel I should pass comment on your behaviour and this nonsense. 
Libel is a very strong word.  Which of the TES users do you think I am and what has anybody said on that particular thread that is libellous?  I can't see anything.  Everybody seems to be taking great care as to what they say about you - what with your history of threatening legal action.Crusading composer 16:06, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You really don't get it do you? Even if the sock puppet accusations were correct, which they are not - I have NEVER used a sockpuppet, the article was fundamentally written well before vhjh became involved as far as I can tell (take a look at the history) and did robeaston99 EVER edit the article or did I miss that? 
Yes you did.  It was Mr Easton? who added the section about the crusading composer.  Perhaps you also missed the fact that the article was initially created and developed by one editor who has only ever edited articles involving you, your work, your school and your homne towns. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Have you thought about my suggestion?  We let this AfD take it's course - I doubt if your article will be deleted - although I believe that a tag should be added staing possible vanity article; I won't mention you again and you don't mention me again?  I will curb my occasional impulses to show you up and you curb your impulses to blame me for everything?  I will stick to editing articles that interest me and leave you to edit those articles that interest you?  What about that?Crusading composer 16:03, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You have a bee in your bonnet because of our disagreements on TES - you then harassed me and stalked me there and now you have been stalking me here. This, as several others have pointed out, is a bad-faith nomination by someone who has totally lost the plot. I do hope someone decides to take a look at your behaviour and asks whether you are a sound person to be editing on WP. Robsteadman 21:17, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm satisfied that what I have said exonerates me.  Why not just let the matter drop?  I won't have anything more to do with you, your userpage, your contributions, your articles - I can't say that I have any interest in them now that I have said my piece, and you stop trying to smear me and blame me for every misfortune that happens to you?Crusading composer 21:56, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I totally agree Jareth. The thing is I have no dispute if CC stopped stalking me on various internet sites. Robsteadman 19:45, 5 March 2006 (UTC)