Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephan Shakespeare


 * 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 keep. John254 15:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Stephan Shakespeare

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

The subject is not notable enough. Stuarta 10:43, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep. Google 'Stephan Shakespeare' before nominating the article.  You'll find 12,300 hits, including articles in the Guardian, both about him (,, etc) and written by him (, , etc).  He's the founder of the UK's laregst polling company, the founder of the UK's first internet TV station, a major stakeholder in and regular contributor to the UK's most popular blog, and a former Conservative PPC.  As a result of all of the above, he's one of the best-known party-political figures outside elected office in this country.  How about you explain how he's not notable. Bastin 11:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * You overstate your case. He is not "one of the best-known party-political figures outside elected office in this country".  He is not, for example, remotely as well known as Alistair Campbell.  You cite newspaper articles about him that comprise a mocking piece on his role as "rosy-cheeked official friend" of Jeffrey Archer during the perjury scandal, and a business piece on YouGov &mdash; not significant coverage of Shakespeare himself.  I do not regard involvement with an "internet TV station" or being a "stakeholder" in a political blog to be persuasive either.  There are numerous people involved in such minor league media operations, just as there are founders of market research companies.  These people don't have Wikipedia pages.
 * His newspaper political commentary is slightly more persuasive. Indeed, I'm prepared to be swayed on those grounds alone, because it might be that because of it he has some name recognition, or that he has made a major impression in that arena.  What you have presented so far is not extensive, however.  Is he more notable than other newspaper writers whose pages have been deleted on grounds of non-notability?
 * On a separate note, I would say that the page as it stands reads in parts like advertising for YouGov. I shall take this matter up if the page stays.
 * More broadly, I would point out that the evidential burden is on you, pace your final sentence. You need to provide the sources showing his notability, and the article should reflect these sources.  So far this isn't the case.
 * Stuarta 16:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. Notable as the founder of a major polling company and as a Parliamentary candidate for a major party. DWaterson 21:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Another founder of YouGov is Nadhim Zahawi. He does not have a Wikipedia page.  Nor, as far as I know, do the founders of MORI, ICM or Populus (although feel free to correct me on that).  Are you suggesting founders of companies generally should be included, or just founders of polling companies?  If so, why?
 * Shakespeare is a failed, former candidate for parliament, of which there is a long list not deemed significant enough for encyclopedic coverage. The Wikipedia notability guidelines for politicians state that inclusion is warranted for "Politicians who have held international, national or statewide/provincewide office, and members and former members of a national, state or provincial legislatures."  Shakespeare falls short of that.  He clearly does not merit inclusion on grounds of political signifiance deriving from his unsuccessful candidacy.
 * Stuarta 22:57, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, the founder of MORI, Sir Robert Worcester, does indeed have an article.
 * The notability criterion that you cite is a sufficient criterion. That is, if it is met - if one is a member of a national legislature, etc - one is notable by default.  In this case, I would argue that he would not be notable by that criterion, but a modicum of sense would suggest that the criteria are cumulative.  Whether or not he is notable as a politician is open to debate (he was covered by the national media for his role in the Norris mayoral campaign, remember).  However, whatever your opinion on that, he must be considered notable because independent sources cover a range of his activities that, put together, make him more notable than your average former backbench MP, even though the latter qualifies automatically so long as he has independent sources published about him. Bastin 23:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. If you wish to create articles about other company founders, you are free to do so. Let the community judge each article on its merits. WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNOTEXIST is no more relevant than WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Dbromage  [Talk]  23:56, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. Easily meets WP:N, WP:V and WP:RS but needs cleanup. Dbromage  [Talk]  23:56, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep There is enough coverage in reliable sources for him to easily meet WP:BIO including writing several articles for the Guardian and the Spectator . Davewild 08:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, I've been persuaded. I disagree that the article "easily" meets WP:N; it still seems a borderline case to me.  He is not a prominent businessman, politician or political commentator.  I disagree also that precedents elsewhere on Wikipedia are irrelevant: articles cannot be judged in a vacuum.  That said, while none of Shakespeare's activities appears sufficient alone to warrant inclusion, I've been persuaded that cumulatively they do  add up to notability.
 * As noted, the article does need cleaning up. It focuses too much on YouGov and its apparent merits, and not enough on Shakespeare's abortive political career and involvement with Archer.  If these things are major reasons for the article's inclusion then they surely deserve more than a sentence each.  Further, I cannot agree that its sources are adequate, given that they comprise the websites of two companies with which Shakespeare is involved.  There is nothing on his political articles, or the articles about him/his company.
 * Stuarta 11:52, 27 August 2007 (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.