Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicholas Beale (3rd nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mywikieditor2007 (talk | contribs) at 15:24, 8 June 2009 (→Nicholas Beale). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Nicholas Beale

AfDs for this article:
Nicholas Beale (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This bio—started in 2007 by User:Chiinners (an account with very few edits)—was written by the subject, who edits as User:NBeale. The earliest version of the article is deleted; see here.

Beale recently co-authored a book about science and religion, Questions of Truth (also created by Nbeale) with John Polkinghorne, a former academic turned vicar. Beale maintains Polkinghorne's website.

The bio is based almost entirely on self-generated source material, much of it from one of the websites under Beale's control. Few of the claims he makes about himself are independently verifiable; those that are have been puffed up to the point of being unrecognizable. Many of them sound wrong-headed e.g. that he is a "social philosopher," when there's arguably no such thing (at least not in academia), and given that he has no qualifications in philosophy (he studied mathematics as an undergraduate; no graduate studies). Wikipedia:Verifiability allows self-published sources to be used so long as they're not self-serving, and so long as the article is not based on such sources. [1] Nicholas Beale fails on both counts.

I've written a description of the sources here.

Deletion history is: first AfD, deleted as non-notable on April 30, 2007. Beale took it to DRV, so a second AfD was held; the article was deleted again on May 11, then userfied. NBeale and a couple of accounts with very few edits kept restoring the article to mainspace. [2] [3] [4] Beale appealed for people to do this on his blog. AN/I discussion about it here. David Epstein added a speedy tag under G4, [5] DGG removed it, so here we are. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 05:03, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. The co-authorship of QoT, being the co-lead speaker at special meetings at the AAAS, RS and RI, radio interviews in the US & UK incl a whole radio programme of on-air dialogue with a notable philosopher are all new since 2007 and confirmed by incontrovertibly reliable 3rd party sources, easily googled. NBeale (talk) 13:34, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If there are numerous reliable, third-party sources on Google about your accomplishments, please provide links to those articles. I have been unable to find any. Cunard (talk) 16:38, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is notable is that those are not clearly reliable sources - a bio which in the normal course of events will have been at least sourced if not written by you, and a publisher. The fact that it seems so hard for you to come up with reliable 3rd party sources concerns me. Dougweller (talk) 18:20, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - So I've spent the last hour reading through all this info. I read through the source description write up by Slim and essentially agree with his/her assessment of each article. The best the article seems to have is 2 very weak secondary sources. There was once a mention of him being a professor on the talk page which I was interested in but, as was also pointed out on the talk page, there's no actual mention of him being a professor in the article. Even if there was, he would need to fulfill some part of WP:PROFESSOR which I don't see any verifiable information to prove that he does. From what I can tell, the book would be the best chance of a claim at notability but I don't see how he would fulfill WP:CREATIVE as a co-author of the book. As a side note, I don't believe that NBeale was originally out of line in editing his own article but it's becoming apparent that he has an agenda besides creating a decent Wikipedia article. I find the post on his blog to be a flagrant proof of that. While I (and no one else seems to) have no concrete proof that he has meat/sock puppets, his defense of them is interesting. If I was accused of sock/meat puppetry, I'd be defending myself and not the puppets. I guess if I had puppets though, defending them would be defending myself. I think that this AfD should be closely monitored for possibly sock/meat puppetry and his blog watched for signs of meatpuppetry. I'd say snow but there's certainly the possibility that he will become notable but it should be made clear that Mr. Beale shouldn't be editing this article in any space. OlYellerTalktome 06:33, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (I must declare an interest as the subject, but then SlimVirgin is doing this because she does not like my edits so perhaps she should declare an interest as well?). Debretts People of Today and the Faraday Institute are reliable sources. And if Onora O'Neill describes someone as a Social Philosopher that is surely a reliable source for this claim as well. As for what has changed, it's not just the co-authorship of Questions of Truth it is also co-presenting in major forums (AAAS, Royal Society, Royal Institution) about it, at specially convened meetings chaired by Jim McCarthy, Onora O'Neill and Stewart Sutherland and a fair number of media appearances. Certainly John Polkinghorne is far more notable than I am, but none of his other books has had this treatment. NBeale (talk) 06:45, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I looked into Slim's profile after I saw how much work she had done. She's an administrator and a very highly praised one at that. All I see is that she's very dedicated to making Wikipedia the best it can be and I have no reason to think otherwise. I may be inclined to change my opinion (about the article, not Slim) if you could show how co-presenting in those forums fulfills an inclusion guideline. As of right now, I feel that Slim has given a good reason as to why presenting in those forums is not grounds for inclusion. Also, while the chairs of those meetings are certainly notable, I don't see how that would make you inherently notable.
'highly praised' by whom? other Wikipedians - for anything outside of neutral subjects such as the chemical makeup of pigements, wikipedia is not taken seriously because of its agenda driven bias. There are plenty of articles which go into some of the more outrageous examples, but suffice to say, a groupthink praise for slimvirgin doesn't add much to the credibility.

OlYellerTalktome 07:03, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reply to NBeale: I have no opinion on your edits; I'm only slightly familiar with them. Regarding Debrett's and Faraday, you wrote those biographies, did you not? That means we can't regard them as independent sources. As for Onora O'Neill calling you a "social philosopher," she almost certainly did that because that's what you call yourself, and she didn't know what else to call you. That meeting was held by the publisher to promote the book, and therefore I'm assuming the panel appeared because they received a fee—and nothing wrong with that, but it means we can't use the eminence of the panel as evidence of your own notability. There's no question that John Polkinghorne, your co-author, is notable, and that therefore the book he co-authored is too. The issue regarding yourself is twofold (two related but separable issues): first, whether you're notable in your own right; and secondly that there is no source of biographical material about you that does not rely entirely on material provided by yourself, which leaves us with nothing solid to base the article on. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 07:07, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi SlimVirgin. Thanks for clarifying your concerns. The meetings at the AAAS, the Royal Society the Royal Institution and Hay on Wye were not organised by our publishers, no-one received a fee and to suggest that a distinguished philosopher who is President of the British Academy might be induced by a fee or otherwise to mis-describe someone as a social philosopher is odd, to say the least. As for bio-material my major publications, my speaking at these gatherings and other solo media appearances are readily verified from completely independent sources. Incorporating additional bio-details from sources like Debretts and the Faraday Institute is perfectly standard practice and WP:BLP specifically allows in addition web material authored by the subject. Can we therefore agree that the only issue is notability? NBeale (talk) 08:55, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This is a tricky one. I think Nicholas Beale is probably borderline notable. He has helped write a couple of books, one of which is the subject of a WP article, and he does appear to be engaged in various somewhat notable activities. But it is striking that the WP article on the book has been largely written by none other than NBeale himself, as has the article on Nicholas Beale – not to mention almost all the sources on which the article is based. In other circumstances I would say weak keep, but his own actions as User:NBeale go a long way towards pushing me to conclude delete. Probably worth a short article, but it would be very different from the present overblown and puffed-out version. Disturbingly, however, I think we are being taken for a ride here. Wikipedia is being used as a platform for self-aggrandisement, as an extension to the subject's blog and/or his resumé. Is such misuse of the WP project, and abuse of editing privileges as a WP editor, sufficient grounds for deletion? If NBeale could bring himself to stay away from this debate, and to stay away from editing the article, then I'd say no, and that an article about him (but not this one) should be kept. But based on his track record I'm very doubtful that this will happen. GNUSMAS : TALK 07:15, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, the subject seems to forget that The Meek Shall Inherit the Encyclopia, but that does not mean we have to forget about turning the other cheek and considering the content independently of the contributor. Vesal (talk) 08:03, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nomination - this person does not meet neither Wikipedia:Notability_(academics)#Criteria nor Wikipedia:CREATIVE#Creative_professionals. The article is mainly about him speaking or coing-this or coing-that. Even if Debrett's is a reliable source (questionable), what notability deos the article there give? The Royal Institution sounds posh, but the only criterion for joining it, according to their homepage is "...an enquiring mind." Is there a book about N. Beale? Are there a number of newspaper articles specifically about him? Is John Polkinghorne so famous that co-authoring a book with him confers notability? I would suggest not. As for the Faraday Institues reliability - the biography there is short and contains little to establish notability according to Wikipedia guidelines. -Duribald (talk) 07:23, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question. I would vote weak keep if the article were trimmed down so that self-promotional fluff is removed. There is a clear lack of coverage directly about the subject in independent sources, but my question to people concerned about the sources is the following: if the current sources were used for non-controversial facts only, would this be workable? Vesal (talk) 08:03, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It depends what you mean by "non-controversial," Vesal. WP:V says we may use material the subject has written only if it is not unduly self-serving and the article doesn't depend on such sources. The problem in this case is that, if you were to remove the self-promotional material, there would be very little left. Debrett's has just confirmed by e-mail that they don't fact-check entries, by the way. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 08:15, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Slim is relying on his "analysis" of the sources which I happened to have been the only one who responded to. See my rebuttal here: Considering these facts, I'd argue you've over-stated the issue of notability. In my opinion the article fails to meet deletion requirements. It is seems there is a persistent yet unjustified preclusion of NBeale's relationship with very notable professors such as John Polkinghorne and how it promotes the challenge of importance in his field of study. I also would like to point out a rather unfortunate usage of begging the question to further an argument by Duribald. I'm sure this was unintentional as it is a common method of persuasion. There are 3rd party sources in the article and essays authored by him have been published in the Harvard Business Review and the Sunday Times. He was also referred to directly in a review by Publishers Weekly. I do not dispute the obvious issue of self-promotion and a dire need to control questionable references but Beale certainly meets, in the least, minimal notability requirements. I feel the article discussion has been a victim of wikipedia legalism which has distracted from the core concern: Is the subject (Nicholas Beale) notable? Yes, he is. To what degree I cannot say because I am not an expert in BLPs and have had my share of losing AFDs but in my opinion this is a no-brainer. I encourage a no-consensus resolve and would hope those who endorse a delete make an attempt to collaborate within the article discussion. Wikifan12345 (talk) 08:11, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A biography of a living person can be deleted if it significantly violates any aspect of the relevant policy and the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain the article to demonstrate that it is compliant with every aspect of the policy. This article blatantly violates the neutrality policy - it's, in fact, a vanity article created by the subject of the article himself. It would need to be substantially rewritten to become encyclopedic. This in itself would be grounds for speedy deletion. Most of the material is poorly sourced, violating WP:V. It violates BLP over and over again. Maybe a case could be made for including an N. Beale article on Wikipedia, but then it should be completely rewritten, and not by the subject himself, and be checked before publication, so that all of it complies with policy. -Duribald (talk) 10:24, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments (and not in any sense a !vote, since I have not yet given sufficient consideration to the matter to !vote): The above debate is defective in a number of respects.

    1) BLPs do not default to "delete" and the burden of proof is on everyone to examine the sources.

    2) AfD should not consider the current content of the article, but its potential. You should !vote delete if, and only if, you consider Nicholas Beale should be a redlink on Wikipedia.

    3) WP:COI is not in itself sufficient reason to delete an article. It is an argument ad hominem and as such a logical fallacy. If Barack Obama had written the article on himself, he would still be notable.

    4) Puffery is a reason to rewrite from a NPOV, but it is not a reason to delete.

    I would also like to point out that SlimVirgin is not a "he".—S Marshall Talk/Cont 10:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I don't see any evidence in how the article is a self-promotion or advertisement of Beale's accomplishments and published work. Plenty of articles on active wikipedia editors could be accused of self-promotion, such as Elonka Dunin and David Eppstein. Self-promotion implies fact-picking and relying on information that only promotes a positive POV. As far as I'm concerned, the article is not unique in such respect. While the content may appear to be spun depending on your perspective, considering it is a rather new article and has been a target of deletion since the get-go it would be unfair to subjugate the article to the commonly applied policy-as-usual argument. We should all ask ourselves, does the article have potential? Wikifan12345 (talk) 10:44, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree strongly. Policy-as-usual absolutely applies to this article.

    The questions we should consider in this AfD are the normal ones we would consider for a biography of a scholar: What influential papers has he written? How frequently are they cited? Has he been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources?

    Until these questions are addressed thoroughly, we shall not have had a proper debate on this article.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 10:50, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By policy-as-usual I'm referring to the common tactic of citing typical policies with little rationale outside of the policy itself. (i.e, articles fails x because of [insert weak/vague justification].) Then after a response another policy is brought up and the vicious cycle continues without end. Uh, in terms of work...we have Questions of Truth and the multiple RS that have given the book a platform. He has written a moderate number of essays which have been published in popular magazines and academic mediums as mentioned in the discussion and here. And, he has developed strong relationships with influential doctors/professors/etc...that have played a role in his actions. I'm simply reiterating what has been said before. I really don't see the reasoning behind this extremely hostile attempt to delete outside of personal POV. Wikipedia has settled for similar articles with far less notability. Oh wait, let me guess...WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Wikifan12345 (talk) 11:04, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:56, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While I believe that the article's subject may come close to being notable, the current article does not contain enough appropriate evidence of this (in spite of considerable edits by the not-put-off-by-WP:COI editor NBeale). Slim's analysis of the article's sources is pertinent here, and she is to be commended for taking the time to produce this (by contrast, my eyes had rolled out my head at the shamelessness of the sources before I had perused all of them). As already noted above, claimed expertise in social philosophy would be expected to be backed up with appropriate evidence from the literature, rather than a passing comment made by a speaker (however name-droppingly eminent) at a promotional event for a book published by the subject. And there's a lot of co-this and co-that going on in the article. Collaboration is a key feature of modern academic life, but the specific contributions of the article's subject need to be clearer. Finally, it's not relevant to this forum, but to echo several other editors, the behaviour of this article's subject in essentially drafting the article, soliciting off-Wiki for its restoration to mainspace, dogged self-promotion and his refusal to bow out of WP:COI-situations, all contribute to the feeling that Wikipedia is being bullied into providing advertising space. This all makes cool, objective assessment of notability difficult. --PLUMBAGO 12:13, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If he's notable as you say, then your !vote should be "stubbify and keep". A !vote to delete an article on a subject you admit to be notable is, I think, clearly incorrect.

    I agree that SlimVirgin's analysis of the sources is very pertinent. She has done a lot of the work of this AfD for us already.

    I think SlimVirgin has shown that most of the article's current sources are deprecable in some way. They could be used, provided there were secondary sources as well. What SlimVirgin has left for us to consider is whether other sources could be found.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 16:09, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

... and Cunard is the winner! (Cunard didn't mention the google scholar search he doubtless did, but google scholar doesn't come up with anything either).

Delete. Not because the article is promotional, not because it's puffery, not because of who the author is, and not because the sources presently in the article are dodgy. Delete it because insufficient sources exist to write this article properly.

I would also support a redirect to Questions of Truth as a possible outcome.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 17:54, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • S Marshall — Erm, perhaps I was being overly courteous and needlessly unclear when I said "may come close to being notable" (my emphasis). I am unconvinced by the article's current sourcing that the subject is notable; I doubt (from my own limited searches) that reliable sources currently exist that would change my mind; but I did not wish my words to rule out notability for all time. My apologies for being mealy-mouthed. --PLUMBAGO 16:48, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is the case. My position is that it is verifiable that Nicholas Beale exists, is a professor, and has written books, but he is not notable enough to have an article because insufficient secondary scources exist. Therefore the article cannot be written properly.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 07:39, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - coverage in 3rd party sources of the subject is lacking, and while he has written books that are notable it does not follow that he is notable because of this. Redirect to Questions of Truth is fine too. Nableezy (talk) 18:36, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I am impressed by the arguments of Gnusmas and Plumbago, above. Attempts at objective assessment of the merits of an article on Nicholas Beale are undermined by NBeale's determined and persistent efforts to plead his case. I am amazed that he seems not to realise that each time he does this he makes it appear less likely that he has genuine notability. If he were really notable, he would not need to keep on digging up scraps of evidence to impress us, and we would be able to find something better than the largely self-generated evidence of notability by association that he offers on his own behalf. I appreciate that the article should be judged on its own merits, and not on the behaviour of its principal author, but the frenetic activity of the subject's alter-ego NBeale tends to provide compelling evidence of Nicholas Beale's non-notability. It also prompts us, perhaps, to take some account of the motives behind such eager self-promotion, and that is bound to colour our assessment of the article. And I'm sorry, but I conclude that this article is not an honest attempt to add value to the encyclopaedia but a hijacking of Wikipedia for personal ends. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 18:44, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I am really of no opinion on the deletion of the article, although it should certainly rely less on NBeale's own work if kept. However, I am troubled by the re-occuring and consistent tendency of NBeale to create, edit, and advocate for articles in which he has a direct connection. Pastordavid (talk) 18:46, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Nick, I strongly urge you to heed Pastordavid's wise words here. (I should declare a — not very significant — interest, as Nick and I are members of the same running club) NSH001 (talk) 19:01, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks - I'll take a wikibreak If the community wants "Wikipedia Legalism" and an "extremely hostile attempt to delete" to succeed, in blatant violation of WP:NPA and common sense, then by all means continue. We all know that what Wikifan says is true - it is up to others how they will act. I'll take a wikibreak for a week or two. NBeale (talk) 06:50, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I see the arguments placed by Nbeale regarding the veracity and applicable gravitas that the sources used by Nbeale to establish notability and concede that as a whole there may be an element of independent third party verification of notability; however I am very concerned that nobody but Nbeale is inclined to "mine" such evidence of notability, that no-one has apparently decided that Nicholas Beale is worthy of an encyclopedia entry and exercised the dilegence and resources in assembling a variety of marginal third party sources and references and amalgamating them to provide a semblence of notability. No one, other than the editor who is also the subject. That the sources may have gained much of their content and viewpoint from similar efforts by the subject is an implication that carries much weight with me, and one that Nbeale has not answered sufficiently in any way. I argue for Delete on the basis that should Nicholas Beale have notability established, then an editor other than Nbeale will desire to create an article from sources that are readily available. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:34, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I read the above discussion and the article and don't see notability per WP:BIO. In particular, the analysis at Talk:Nicholas Beale convinces me that while the subject may have many virtues, none warrant an encyclopedic article. The article info box says the subject is known for "Science and Religion [and] Corporate Governance", but the article seems to say that the subject's contribution was to arrange discussions, make suggestions, and appear in radio interviews. There are some minor publications, but they don't support notability. Johnuniq (talk) 09:01, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Questions of Truth. GNUSMAS : TALK 09:06, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with a strong note of concern about a hybrid concern of the borderline obvious COI mentioned (the editor has a name remarkably similar to the article's name) and all the drama surrounding this. I'm very inclined to suggest at least a temporary salting per the issues mentioned per nom.Tyrenon (talk) 09:46, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I thought about suggesting a salting but the subject could very easily become notable in the future. I believe that NBeale should be barred from editing this page (regardless of whether he is or is not actually Nicholas Beale). OlYellerTalktome 16:55, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to userspace While I still support a Keep it is clear that a delete is most likely in order. I endorse a redirect to QOT and moving the article to NBeale's userspace for further revisions and rewrites. NBeale could re-submit the article at a later time if it meets the notability requirements posed by policy and interpretation. I certainly think there is enough to allow the article to be hosted as a sub-page. Wikifan12345 (talk) 09:54, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • My concern with this article is that it keeps coming up again and again. I hate to say it, but we have an article of questionable notability (at best) being constantly re-tendered by the person it's about (or it at least looks that way to me). I have trouble taking an article with borderline notability and the definite feel of a vanity page seriously, particularly after the drama here.Tyrenon (talk) 16:45, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • For the record NBeale does claim to be Nicholas Beale. OlYellerTalktome 16:50, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Then this makes this particular page all the more agitating. The article is borderline at best on notability; the fact that it has been put here by Mr. Beale and has all the aforementioned issues, not to mention the fact that the article has been deleted before, undermine the credibility of any arguments towards notability. Were the article solidly notable this would not be an issue, but as I said the article is borderline at best.
Also frustrating in this case is the amount of hyperbole involved, not to mention the suspected meatpuppeting as evidenced above. As such, if the article is deleted, I believe that preventing recreation unless and until such time as the notability factor ceases to be questionable and the article is created/added by someone not either the subject of it or a friend/acquaintance thereof. Tyrenon (talk) 22:10, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think he meets notable requirements, particularly in this field. In addition, I agree with the comments concerning 'legalism'. it's this sort of 'activist' editing and asymmetrical application of standards that is has seriously undermined wikipedias rapidly diminishing credibility. edit? sure, trim? sure. Delete is sorry attempt to stifle discussion. Disgraceful —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mywikieditor2007 (talk • contribs) 19:29, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's a difference between legalism and citing legitimately related Wikipedia guidelines and policies. For people to take your comment seriously, you may want to back up your claims with sound reasoning. If you're concerned with Wikipedia's credibility, don't you think that someone making a page about themselves is detrimental to that credibility? Also, you wouldn't happen to be a meatpuppet would you? I ask because you've been gone from Wikipedia for a while and have only come to AfD once before. I'm not saying that you are, just asking. OlYellerTalktome 19:53, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
no i am not a 'meatpuppet' i have been gone from wikipedia because of my disgust with the bias. Sound reasoning, like calling me a 'meatpuppet'? I want to see an objective application of standards. I don't see that in wikipedia, I see an abusrd, agenda-driven bias.—Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Mywikieditor2007 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment – Note the subject's latest off-wiki attempt to canvass support for his cause. What on earth have Dawkins and atheism to do with it? SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 22:27, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – As the one who recently moved this page back to full status, I feel that I should comment again. I feel that Nicholas Beale's work on "Questions of Truth" is reason enough to merit an entry on Wikipedia, and that his work with John Polkinghorne in other areas further supports that. As one who reads frequently on science and faith, I was surprised not to find an entry for N. Beale, and was further surprised to find that anyone felt the need to delete his entry in response to my move. I don't agree that this entry should be deleted. Sofsonline (talk) 01:59, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Idea. First, let me state that I do not feel that Mr. Beale is notable per our standards. However, since a large part of the problem with the article on Mr. Beale is Mr. Beale's repeated (and frankly somewhat irritating) tinkering with the article on him as well as canvassing off-wiki, I would like to make a compromise proposal:
    • The article can stay in a reduced, NPOV-checked form, but with the proviso that Mr. Beale will disbar himself from any edits to the article other than reverting vandalism, etc.
    • He will also not campaign in any way, shape, or form, on-wiki or off-wiki for anything concerning any article on him or his works as a conflict of interest (unless it is concerning defamation, vandalism, and whatnot).
    • If he is caught (or his friends are caught) trying to inflate the bio again, it goes as being unnotable and as being unmaintainable in an NPOV condition.
While I hate to let in an article that I honestly feel doesn't belong in here (i.e. it's on the "delete" side of the borderline), the borderline nature of the article combined with the many objections centering around Beale's involvement make it untenable in my mind. If Beale is willing to walk away, then the article might be maintained with an NPOV, but as long as he is going to be editing his own article then an NPOV will be nigh on impossible to obtain. In a major article this wouldn't be an issue, but considering the borderline status of the article I would rather not have an article that we can't NPOV (and have to worry about the subject writing and/or rewriting) than keep it. If it can be neutral, I'd be willing to give the article a chance for improvement, but as of now that's impossible and as such we're substantially better off without it than with it IMHO.Tyrenon (talk) 03:23, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While I will support any rationale that ends in "Keep" your idea is less than orthodox. It would be unfair of us to give the article special privileges that are not explicitly endorsed by BLP policy. Many articles on active wikipedians have gotten trashed as a result of self-promotion (or accusations of such action) and COI. Nicholas Beale cannot be an autobiographical narrative of non-notable accomplishments. No precedent has been set outside of official mediation where judgments are made in how an article is edited that goes beyond policy. In other words, for your idea to work, the article would have to be submitted to MEDCAB or in the least mediated by an experienced BLP admin and only then could restrictions be dealt. This is all under the assumption that Beale is kept which appears to be highly unlikely. I strongly recommend a move to userspace and then re-submit the article following an intense rewrite. Beale needs to get out of his own article and let other people edit, this could be done in a non-encyclopedic sub-page. That seems like a more than fair compromise. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:19, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think we're on the same page in general. As long as Beale is involved in his article, beyond reverting vandalism, slander, etc., the article will never be NPOV. I agree. If this article were to be kept in some form (and I do suspect that if it gets deleted it will be back before too long), though, I do think mediation might be in order as you described.Tyrenon (talk) 19:35, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd endorse a move to userspace as long as it's not to NBeale's. OlYellerTalktome 05:39, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I have now trimmed the article to the extent that it is close to being neutral. The sources are not as good as one would want, there is no significant coverage in third-party sources, but also see this footnote from Uncle G's essay. That Debrett's and the Faraday institute decided to publish his more or less self-supplied bio does weigh something towards notability; and if these are used for extremely uncontroversial facts, then I don't see a problem. Note that I've utterly eradicated any mention of him being a social philosopher. Finally, that Grayling and Baggini has engaged with the subject has weight with me, and I've added citations to their blog postings. Vesal (talk) 11:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    We can't use the Debrett's or Faraday entries, because he wrote them and they weren't fact-checked. What is needed is a reliable source who was written about Beale independently of him, both to establish notability and to base the article on. In the absence of that, practically everything in this article would have to be removed. That we're forced to rely on blogs, which are not normally allowed in BLPs, would suggest we're going to make an exception for Beale, and I really see no reason to. It sends out the signal that persistent vanity editing will pay off eventually. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 11:52, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that having to resort to criticism on blogs (although they are fairly decent blogs) in order to establish notability indicates there is a problem, and I certainly don't want to commend NBeale for his vanity editing. In particular, his portrayals of editors concerned with notability issues are effectively personal attacks, and he should be firmly warned that this kind of behavior is not acceptable. As for myself, I seem to have a slightly lower standards than others on what is useful to keep and what is not, but I'm certainly not making an exception here due to being impressed by his self-advocacy. The case for delete is very strong even without him complicating things, but leaving behavioral issues aside, I personally believe the encyclopedia is better off with a short bio than without it. The article needs even more trimming, but I think my edits gave an indication of what a more neutral article may look like. If this is deleted, I certainly won't object. Best wishes, Vesal (talk) 13:15, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Insufficient notability for stand-alone article. What reliable sources there are cover the book, and the article on that subject was created by Mr. Beale also. So let's leave it at that and move along. Wikipedia is not for self-promotion. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:51, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per Plumbago and Slim. There's a real lack of independent third-party sources that attest to Beale's notability. If this is the best he can come up with, then it's pretty clear that he isn't notable enough for a Wikipedia bio. The book appears to be notable, but notability isn't inherited (and mind you, Beale is second author with a far more notable co-author). Guettarda (talk) 16:05, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep on balance, primarily because of the book with Pokingham, though I'd be much happier if he were the major author and it could be demonstrated. I said very week keep at the 2nd afd, but I think the role in the standards work is now better elucidated. DGG (talk) 20:20, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete After all the work on this page, if this is the best we can collectively do, I don't think he's over the threshold, independent of all the COI issues - Vartanza (talk) 03:19, 8 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nicholas_Beale_(3rd_nomination)&oldid=295184370"