Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicholas Beale (second nomination)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. -Docg 17:01, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nicholas Beale

Nicholas Beale (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This article was deleted through an AfD that closed two days early. DRV found that this was significantly unfair to the article's proponent, and so ordered a relisting. The DRV contains the arguments of the article's author in favor of the content's retention. Please allow this listing to remain for the full five days until 10 May 2007. This is a procedural relisting, so I abstain. Xoloz 16:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete This article was created a month ago, and user NBeale has been the primary contributor. It has had a {{LikeResume}} tag on it since the beginning, and there hasn't been any sign of improvement. The article is essentially asserting "notability by proxy", ie, notability by weak association with notable individuals:
    1. The most reliable source in the article is apparently a series of emails NBeale published on his website, in which he initiates a debate with someone notable.
    2. He also cites amorphous "collaborations" with notable individuals; and
    3. he wrote a book and dedicated it to a notable individual.
    The original creator of the article, User:Chiinners, has made 6 edits, all to his user page and to the article. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-05-05 17:13Z
  • Comment well this debate was published in Prospect there are also publications in the HBR, Sunday Times, The Times, co-authored books, patent etc.. The article has improved today (6 May) and cites better, and even the old article was independently rated Start Class which is in the top 25% of rated bios. Chiinners has explained his position on the article's talk page and may well feel somewhat bitten. I'm sure I'd vote Keep on an article like this about someone else, though as the subject I have a COI NBeale 21:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Clarification. Being rated "start class" tells us nothing about the notability, verifiability or importance of the article and its subject, and these are the subjects of discussion here. A "start class" article is merely one which meets certain basic criteria for content and layout, and it means it's a bit better than a stub. Details at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biography/Assessment. Apart from the statistical sleight-of-hand in the claim that this means it is "in the top 25% of rated bios", this is completely irrelevant. Snalwibma 07:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm glad someone said something about this. The only other option for rating an article lower than "Start" is "stub", and this article is too long and too wikified to be a stub. Start is almost the bottom rung on the assessment scale, so I do not see the fast that it has been rated so low a persuasive argument to "keep". I do think asking the user who rated the article to participate in this conversation could be helpful. [just noticed that user voted delete in both AfDs]'-Andrew c 14:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Google search reveals a blog, a few mentions on friends' blogs, a minor book, and this wikipedia article. The claim that Nicholas Beale is a "social philosopher" is not borne out by the article or the sources. He seems in fact to be a businessman who writes a blog and expresses some strong opinions, not least by POV-pushing on wikipedia. Non-notable. Gnusmas 17:18, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete first thing I noticed is the lead was very poor (one sentence) and didn't explain his notability, but read almost like a personal add (listing his interests). So I continued reading to see where the notability was explained. While all of the places he worked were listed, and other trivia, I failed to find any reliable, independent secondary source that covered the subject in depth, nor multiple independent sources establishing notability. Reading through the special circumsatnces on WP:BIO, Beale seems to fail all of them. The closest two are The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique. and The person has created a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. Neither are established in the current article. If one of these conditions are met, and all the trivia information removed, I would have to support this article, but as of now, the article does not meet WP:BIO and I have doubts about the ability to meet those guidelines. There was talk on the talk page that Beale suggested that he may meet the criteria based on originating a significant new concept, theory or technique, but it seems like a WP:COI for the subject to be arguing for inclusion on his own behalf. If you are that notable, you shouldn't need to make the arguments for yourself. -Andrew c 17:35, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. A Google search shows that there are not many well-established secondary sources. Most of the information is extracted from the blog. Sr13 (T|C) 18:48, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep -Very weak Keep I think he is notable, and has the references to prove it. It is quite hard to tell from the article, which is written in an outrageously spammy style, and contrives to mention each publication twice: once in the references and once in the list of publications. He list as a publication an IEEE standard on which he was undoubtedly one of a considerable working or review group--as with all standards. He gives no exact refs to some of the publications so it is hard to tell if he is significantly mentioned. He links to eminent people who have influenced him or with whom he has been on conference programs. No wonder it was quickly closed. At the Deletion Review I supported relisting. I accept Andrew c's challenge to see if the article can be rescued. I've just performed a first round of trimming, and will do another later today. For the record, I had never heard of the man before the deletion review. That is not a reason for deleting, of course, but perhaps I can be objective about it. DGG 19:06, 5 May 2007 (UTC). I've just done what I think is enough, eliminated the double references, and abbreviate the intermediary stages of his career. Query: he went to Trinity college--did he receive a degree? On the basis of the article as revised, i changed by !vote from "Weak Keep" to "Very Week Keep". DGG 19:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
    • If he is notable, explain it in the lead section. Right now, the article doesn't assert any notability. Anyone can list famous people that have influenced their thinking; that doesn't make them notable. Two questions for you (or anyone else):
      1. What is the most notable thing about Nicholas Beale?
      2. What part of WP:BIO does Nicholas Beale satisfy in order to keep the article? — BRIAN0918 • 2007-05-05 21:57Z
      • I'll try to explain this a bit in the article tomorrow evening, but I think the 2 most "notable" things are: (a) Initiating (in 1997) the serious consideration of the ethical and spiritual implications of the Internet and (b) Helping improve communication, trust and understanding between UK Investors, Industrialists and Innovators which has made a contribution to London becoming the world's leading financial centre. Also FWIW Debrett's People of Today and Prospect are not blogs, nor is the record of 43 citations of my patent! NBeale 22:48, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
        • What reliable sources assert your claims in (a) and (b)? As I already explained, Debrett's is obviously not a be-all-end-all for notability; there are several sources which list "famous people", but we don't automatically accept everyone from those sources as being truly famous, as in the case of Find-A-Grave's Famous People list that's used in WP:MEA; the list serves as a starting point, and we weed out the ones that are most likely not notable/verifiable enough for Wikipedia. As for patents, obviously if Wikipedia considered every patent owner notable, we would have ten times as many articles as we have now. My company has several patents that are utilized by dozens of other companies, and all branches of the military, but it's not notable for an encyclopedia. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-05-05 23:00Z
        • I too have initiated serious consideration of many things, with some of my findings published in leading journals, and I like to think I have helped improve communication, trust and understanding in one or two minor spheres, but I don't consider myself notable enough for a wikipedia article. And if I did I would most certainly leave it for others to judge, and not constantly badger other editors about it and plead my case. Gnusmas 07:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per 0918, Gnusmas and Andrew c. -Duribald 19:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete - I missed the first nomination but the subsequent debate hit my watchlist radar. I am highly aware that the subject, as an editor on Wikipedia, and I are no doubt diametrically opposed on some subjects though I feel that ultimately our goals for humanity do converge. The map I present though has Proverbs 16:18 engraved on it but since when were aphorisms Wikipedia guidelines ?. The standards we set for articles are proportionate to the interest in the subject; low traffic or interest articles can gather the lint of primary sourced quotes, marginal secondary cites, original research and synthesis which in high traffic articles would be erased in an instant. Unfortunately the subject as an editor has set a high standard for us to follow and this article fails to establish the notability. The book Cybernauts Awake!, stinks of Christian apologetics and is copyright the Church of England. Manufactured by a committee we are uncertain of the role of each person in the making of the book. The web site [1] introduces what has to be the weirdest set of links I have ever seen in my 10 years on the Internet (they are all mailto:'s). So in the end though it superficially looks like there should be a claim to notability in the end we are unable to verify that from reliable sources. Ttiotsw 20:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per Andrew c - fails WP:BIO. Sophia 21:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
  • DeleteKeep. Mildly notable but not provably. At present the article still contains claims which are not verified, and are even in doubt. It is critical that we do not leave our readers misinformed, but removing them all would remove all evidence of notability. As an example of one of my concerns, the mentioned IEEE 802 paper was, according to IEEE, put out by the 802.5 WG, which doesnt list Beale, and Beale site:ieee802.org doesnt help either. As our efforts to source these statements have failed, our readers efforts will also, and so they will assume the information is correct. John Vandenberg 01:55, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • The combination of the subjects technical publications (which have now been verified), and having read the "Debrett's People of Today" entry (a rival to Who's Who (UK)), notability and verifiability are no longer a problem. John Vandenberg 00:29, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
As for the standard, the site lists only the editors of the subgroups, not all the members. Still looking. DGG 03:56, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the effort you have put into this. I've posted the refs for this in the article's talk page - I should be able to scan the relevant sections of the documents and post them on the web if that would be helpful. NBeale 19:07, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • comment. I'm waiting to see what DGG will make of this. My view is simple, Wikipedia should be written for our readers, and WP:BIO is all about whether there is enough material about the person to write something interesting for our readers, and this has nothing to do with how important the subject is, or how big is his real contribution. The question is how much encyclopaedic and neutral material can we gather about the subject to write something interesting. I personally think his views are rather interesting, and might be of interest to our readers. I mean: "the scientific and philosophical arguments for the existence of God are almost overwhelming" -- that's an overwhelming opinion! --Merzul 14:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. I also am waiting to see what emerges before I make a final decision. But when someone has to work as hard as NBeale is doing to provide evidence of his own notability, and has to devote so much energy to ensuring that other wikipedia editors find all that he can dig up, it smacks of desperation, and also suggests that he really isn't that notable. If he met the criteria of WP:BIO it would not be necessary for him to do all this lobbying. And if he walked away and left others to draw their own conclusions, it would surely help his cause. Actually, that's the trouble - the cause of Nicholas Beale the article and that of NBeale the wikipedia editor are inextricably bound together, and this inevitably prompts thoughts of hidden agendas, impure motives and dirty dealings. Snalwibma 19:19, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete this again, let the AFD run the whole five days so we can finally put it to rest, and watch out for the single-purpose-accounts that always seem to crowd around this guy's blog.[2] He's written some things, but many authors do not meet WP:N. There's exactly zero non-trivial third-party coverages of him, so we have nothing but User:NBeale's own primary sources to write an article from. This glaring lack of WP:N means the article will always fundamentally fail WP:V, and that is an unacceptable policy violation. ··coelacan 03:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Factual correctionFor listing of 3rd-party sources see the article's talk page. NBeale 21:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Obvious and speedy delete. Previous deletion was proper, DRV was based on bureuacracy and requests for a {{shrubbery}}. >Radiant< 08:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - obvious bias as creator of original article, which in retrospect I did a particularly poor job of writing and researching. I still maintain that the subject's published books and industrial achievements are significant (albeit in a particularly specific discipline) and that recognition of his ideas from prestigious and objective journals/magazines constitutes notability, although this may well be personal prejudice ... in any event, verifiability seems to be a major issue, and I'll see what I can do. Although Brian0918 will no doubt take the opportunity to repeatedly assert "This user is a sock/meatpuppet" about which I admit I'm still somewhat bitter ... Chiinners 13:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
    I'm sorry you were offended, but please read WP:MEAT carefully and calmly, and think about it. You were unfortunate in creating an article on a controversial Wikipedia editor, who has a history of friends showing up in various obscure debates. Your contribution history at the time was minimal, so describing you as a meatpuppet in the context of debates related to NBeale was technically accurate. It is perhaps needlessly offensive, and I hope it won't be repeated; but nagging about Brian's behaviour is equally unnecessary. Now, if you want the article to stay, then please edit it to be less of a promotional piece, and more of an encyclopaedia article; then some people might vote keep. Of course, there's no guarantee, but my guess is that it would do a lot better than currently, because I see some new names here who have voted delete. --Merzul 16:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Abstain What seems to be lacking is any details of the impact of his contribution on the world of business. Not to suggest that writing a book is not an accomplishment; however, did the information in the book have notable impact. Were there any consequences to his efforts? Darwin wrote a book "Origin of Species”; however, it was the impact of his book that makes him worthy of encyclopedic recognition. Did NBeal’s work have an impact? I see nothing in the article expanding upon the effects his efforts in the world of business or any other area. The closest validation of the significance of his contributions seems to come from brief "quotes" which are on a marketing page for the book. Such "catch phrases" are commonly used to promote the sales of books and in-and-of them self do not denote any importance to the work. Has NBeal had an impact on the world of business? If so it needs to be detailed in the article. Has he had an impact on the world in philosophy and religion; if so it needs to be detailed in the article? Hosting websites and publishing books are irrelevant unless you can establish some type of notable influence; at least within the field of claimed expertise. Such an entry as it stands now detracts from the credibility of Wikipedia; it should never be used as a marketing tool, either for book promotion or self promotion. --Random Replicator 00:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Debretts has answered the question "Did NBeal's work have an impact"; the impact is already able to be seen through the veil of the promotional phraseology currently on the article. The talk page has much more material to demonstrate this, and Google Scholar demonstrate the technical contributions Beale to society. So far, I've been researching and fact checking; I will get on with revising the article if time is given for me to do so (the five days is nearly up). John Vandenberg 01:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Debrett's People of Today: It contains biographical details of approximately 28,000 people from the entire spectrum of British society. The key being 28,000.
If the publications you list are relevant then perhaps they should be discussed within the entry ... here are the ones you listed from Google ... good luck.
Doc.1: “This paper explains the importance of standard fibre-optic LANs, and gives an overview of the state of development of the main emerging fibre-optic LAN standards.”
Doc 2: This paper describes a notation for the formal specification of software packages. The main influences are the guarded commands of Dijkstra and the Algebraic Semantics of Guttag.
Doc 3: A data transmission system comprising a plurality of reconfiguring devices, each device having a plurality of input and output data links, a selected number of the devices being connected to a ring whereby for each reconfiguring device, data is received on one data input link and transferred to one data output link such that data may be passed between all the reconfiguring devices along the ring, each said configuring device including means for detecting the presence of a fault in the ring, said means in different devices cooperating to attempt to cause data to be transmitted around a sub-ring when a fault is detected, the sub-ring being constituted at least partially by one or more of the previously unused data links to enable a number of the devices to continue to communicate; and means for merging for detecting that a new reconfiguring device is connected to at least one pair of previously unused data input and output links and for reconfiguring the ring to include the new device. One sentence … wow!
Publications in specialty journals, even with sentences as impressive as that one, do not denote notability. No doubt he is very smart … but his sphere of influence is not significant enough. --Random Replicator 02:44, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Response to the question Some key facts about impact are on the Articles Talk Page. BTW a patent has to be written like that, and FWIW it is cited by 46 others: the average is about 10 and the median I think 1. NBeale 06:44, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Additional research has lead me to abstain: I have attempted to search of precedence for “notability” in the field of consulting (one of the categories shared by this entry) by visiting other Wikipedia articles on the topic. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Consultants It was discouraging. The majority of the biographies had not a thread of notability (in my opinion) and contributed absolutely nothing to the advancement of knowledge and understanding. No doubt none of the entries, including this would ever be considered for Britannica or for that matter even Encarta On-line. However, this is Wikipedia, where the significance of the information does not have to be balanced against the cost of publication. There does seem to be an element of self-promotion by his adamant defense of this entry, which albeit strange, is not relevant to the decision making process. Notable people can self-promote and in fact usually do so. I retract my objection on the grounds that I am unqualified to pass judgment on what are the minimum standards for notability in an encyclopedia of this type. My apologies for wasting your time; I am obviously too much of a newbie to engage in this level of decision making. --Random Replicator 01:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Apparently borderline notable, but only appears so because of the extraordinary lengths the subject of the article has gone to in his attempts to persuade us of his own notability. Given this much promotional effort, almost anyone could be shown to be worth a wikipedia article. The insistent lobbying by the subject also raises serious issues of conflict of interest, and his efforts, far from confirming the value of the article, tip the balance firmly in favour of DELETE. Snalwibma 07:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. I used to work with Nicholas, and I have been thinking alot about him this week, as it was in his company that I met the former CEO of BP plc, John Browne, at a meeting Nick had convened with him, the then Chairman of X Plc Lord XX, Sir XX (former Chairman of XX plc and now XX), and the Vice Chancellors of XX and XX Universities. These people were there because he had brought them together and were listening to him. Others I could mention who have worked with Nick on his ideas would include the then Chairman of XX, Lord XX, Sir XX (current Chairman of XX) and Paul Myners. I could go on. The difficulty of proving the notability of someone like Nicholas is that his work is by nature highly confidential - indeed, I think he may be pretty uncomfortable with my mentioning clients by name. The fact remains that he is an opinion former for UK business leaders and others. When his most recent book was published, the Sunday Times saw fit to publish a long extract. Had he been less discreet, I am sure they would have serialised the whole thing. Nick is notable, even if his web presence alone may not be sufficient to prove it. Laura H S 12:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC)Names blanked for the record, they are living people: they were supplied NBeale 22:56, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Comment - In other words, we have only his (and your) word for it, and you are arguing that he is notable precisely because it is impossible to establish notability from verifiable sources! I also note that the nominator at the top of this page makes much the same point as you - that any notability depends largely on name-dropping. Snalwibma 12:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Q Why are HBR, Amazon.com, The Sunday Times, Debretts, Google Patents, Google Scholar, the National Library of China, Prospect etc.. not verifiable sources? NBeale 13:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
A - oh, they are, but that's not what Laura is saying - she is arguing precisely that the less verifiable it is the more important it is. My comment was a response to what struck me as laughable nonsense. I just loved the blatant name-dropping, and the implication that certain people move in such exalted circles that we mere mortals should know our places and accept any old drivel that is dished out on the basis of an appeal to authority! Snalwibma 13:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Comment Sorry Snalwibma, not at all what I meant to imply. All I was saying was that the people mentioned are notable authorities, and in their opinion Nicholas is notable, although you may not find much on the web to prove it. I admit it saddens me that you consider my view to be "laughable nonsense". It was intended to be a helpful contribution. Laura H S 13:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
I must thank you, Laura H S, for your comment earlier above with this, "Had he been less discreet", as the irony of that will not be lost on the rest of us who have had to wade through Beale's not inconsiderable contributions. The problem really is that there does seem to be an almost religious fervour on his part to keep his article in Wikipedia and that is worrying as it feels like Astroturfing. Ttiotsw 01:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment, note that the book "Cybernauts Awake" (ISBN 0715165860) is an offical publication of The Archbishops' Council, and has been mentioned in a significant way by New Statesman, BBC, Computer Weekly, The Register, and SlashDot, and that is only the online resources that are still freely available from 1999ish. Google News Archives shows others that are archived, and NBeales website lists others that are no longer available. The book is in many OCLC member libraries[3]. The full text of the book can be found at [4]; see table of contents on the left. John Vandenberg 14:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
    Note also (having cast myself as the Evil One, I will continue in this vein!) that in relation to Cybernauts Awake, Beale seems to have been only one of seven people in the working party responsible for this slim (94-page) book, and that his name is not associated with it in the sources you mention. Snalwibma 15:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
    There are, more reliable sources that quoted Beale for their coverage of the book. Scanning the list of the working parties members, all excepting perhaps the secretaries appear to be quite notable as eminent scholars; the Church of England didnt select these people in order to write a novel -- a work of this sort recieves immediate critical review by all media outlets. John Vandenberg 23:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
The Cybernauts Awake though is ultimately self-published (The publisher Church House Publishing being in-house) and represents what the CoE view is. I question if it has been that critically reviewed but in the end who asserts the moral rights as the author to the work is the committee and not Beale. The quotes seem trivially pithy and the allusion to fame again seems to be through association. The "God and science" in Prospect 30 seem to be repackaging of the Beale/Howson emails (http://www.starcourse.org/discussion/mainemails.html) and the Times bit (http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/natural_resources/article573566.ece) is "Adapted from Constructive Engagement — Directors and Investors in Action, by Nicholas Beale" i.e. a friendly plug. The Harvard Business Review Article article (reprint) is 2 pages and it's description is "When a crisis forces outside directors to navigate major changes, investors and directors must adopt new roles. The case of Royal Dutch/Shell provides useful lessons." which our readers will remember from The Times article and Constructive Engagement...etc etc etc. The rest is co-author stuff which unfortunately any critical review can't really point us in the right direction on notability (it can only tell us that the book/article was notable not the co-authors). Ttiotsw 01:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Obvious and speedy delete per Radiant. --Mais oui! 07:59, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Facts or.. On the one hand we have the judgements of the Editors of Debretts, the Harvard Business Review, the Sunday Times, Prospect, the Court of the WCIT, the IEEE Standards Board, and the top management of several major financial institutions[5], etc.. who consider the subject or his work to be of unusual significance. On the other hand many WP Editors don't like the subject's views or edits on Wikipedia. And the result is .... NBeale 14:02, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
    Comment: I invite NBeale to withdraw that unwarranted personal attack on the motives of his fellow-editors. Snalwibma 17:24, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
    Comment - Interestingly I will quote NBeale who said "it's ludicrous to list everything he has ever published! Stick to real peer-reviewed please" in the edit summary for [6] on the Victor J. Stenger article where NBeale removed 35 or so references to stuff that Stenger had written. The deletions range from small 1/2 page fluff to chapters in books. It looks like the standard that NBeale has set for others is rather high. The question is should we apply the same hurdle to his own efforts and thus little of what NBeale has written would match the criteria of "real peer-reviewed" that he himself has set ?. Ttiotsw 19:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Removed ... from a section headed "Singly authored articles in peer reviewed or similar publications". Ah well. It's already clear enough that many people here don't like NBeale's edits on WikiPedia. FWIW I'm not making a personal attack on anyone, and I apologise to anyone who took it that way, just an observation about the arguments used. NBeale 06:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
  • You are free to revert that if you think NBeale's logic was incorrect. Looking at that specific example, I read NBeale's logic to be: "Stenger has lots of quality research output, so the bio need only focus on those". OTOH, this article has been nominated for deletion for not having enough notability, so the article is being used as a scratch pad to assert that. No doubt the less important parts of this bio will be trimmed by some equality random person, and there edit message will probably look similar. John Vandenberg 23:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Given that I have had repeated skirmishes with NBeale over the past six months or so, I've elected to Abstain in the vote here. However, given that said user is by some margin the strongest proponent for this article, I'm finding my patience becoming increasingly frayed. Surely common sense (or a fear of appearing vain) dictates that one should steer clear of discussions of one's own notability? And, anyway, any judgement here on notability does not stand for all time; it can be reviewed in the future. Who knows, maybe Nicholas Beale will find "overwhelming scientific arguments for God's existence" next week? --Plumbago 14:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I just got a personal comment on my talk page from NBeale basically asking me to reconsider and change my vote (of course in nicer terms). But it just really, really gives me a bad taste when the subject of the article is contacting me personally for the sake of keeping his article on wikipedia. I've never encountered an AfD where the main advocate has gone through such lengths to make sure that he has an article on himself on wikipedia. I mean, can I still rationally judge the quality and notability of the article when things have become personal? Well, the question of multiple, non-trivial reliable sources is subjective, and it is still not explicit in the article why Nicholas is notable, and it still reads like a resume, and has unencyclopedic information. So not all of my concerns have been met. I'm not sure if others agree (I've seen some comments that may be sympathetic to this), but I would make me feel more comfortable if NBeale withdrew from advocating on behalf of himself to avoid WP:COI.-Andrew c 18:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
  • here is the request to re-evaluate the article due to significant change. I agree that NBeale should refrain from advocacy, but we should be attentive to any relevant information and evidence he adds to the talk page. John Vandenberg 23:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete mainly self-publicity from a mainly non-noteable person. The extent to which he has to work on his own article and fight to keep it, makes that clear. A bit sad.Merkinsmum 19:08, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment, I would like to point out that Wikipedians with a bio are entitled to participate in discussions about the article, and it is very likely they will be disruptive but the rest of us should AGF. Angela Beesley nominated her article for deletion, yet also accused a latter nominator of trolling. WP:COI is a guideline on how notable Wikipedians should operate, but these are real people so comments made by other Wikipedians can hit home too hard and result in strange human outbursts. Academics are regularily found to have written there own bio on Wikipedia, so that shouldnt shock us into an immediate delete mode. Instead we should be thankful for the contributions, evaluate them fairly, and clean them up. Please bear in mind that the subject clearly meets the WP:N criterion (and the same can be found in WP:BIO), by way of Debretts and Prospect (and others). The coverage was significant, and the sources are reliable and independent of the subject. John Vandenberg 23:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. I am in agreement with Vandenberg. Publications, patents, citings/reviews by business & financial awards/newspapers...Seems to fit withing WP:BIO guidelines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mclaugb (talk • contribs)
    For the record, Mclaugb has made a total of 13 contributions to wikipedia. Nine of them were minor corrections to four articles. The other four were contributions to AfD debates in which he has supported NBeale's viewpoint. I draw no conclusions from these facts. Snalwibma 14:57, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
This is one of the most pathetic afd's I have ever witnessed. Have people really, really got nothing better to do with their time? --Mais oui! 16:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. In addition to the reasons given above, NB seems to understate his work with John Polkinghorne. He says he manages Polkinghorne's web site but it seems to be more of a collaborative work since NB makes the most significant contribution to the theological questions raised, from what I can see. GoldenMeadows 15:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Should every webmaster of a notable individual also be considered notable? Every website run by a third party is given regular input by those who are the subject of the website. This is no different here. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-05-12 19:51Z
      • No, but if they had the same minimum level of notability in their own sectors as the subject of this article, and had a significant input in the work of someone who is clearly worthy of an article, then I would say yes.
        • The primary explanation in your Keep is that he is the webmaster for the site of someone notable. Every webmaster has significant control over the content (obviously, since the subjects don't usually have much understanding of how sites should be layed out or structured), so you haven't really shown that anything you claim is actually true. However, this discussion is closed, so any further comments are of no use. I'll unwatch this page. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-05-13 16:51Z
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.