Deletion of Nicholas Beale (5th nomination)

Comment: and salt. Still fails 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)

Comment: from a previously involved editor: I have no opinion yet on the other points raised, but this does not qualify as "recreation of a previously deleted article"&mdash;this one does look substantially different than the deleted versions. That doesn't mean it should be automatically be kept, but it does mean it should be considered on its own merits without being prejudiced by the outcome of previous AfDs. I haven't read most of the previous AfDs enough to know if the subject has been judged to be categorically non-notable, so I have no opinion yet on notability. But AfDs that were only about re-creation of deleted content (specifically AfD #4) are not really relevant here, as this is a more or less new article. Issues of notability and COI apply, but issues of re-creation do not.Also, in response to points raised by SlimVirgin and LessHeardvanU above: it is obvious that NBeale, while a helpful editor in other areas of the encyclopedia, is a single-minded COI editor when it comes to edits related to this article (as evidenced by edits to  and discussion surrounding this article). But articles are not deleted based on the behavior of their subjects, they are deleted based on non-adherence to core policies, so NBeale's behavior around this article is not really relevant to this AfD
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:NOR)

Comment: How do people interpret the secondary notability criteria? : "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." This use lots of disjunctions, so it logically follows from the following statement "The person has played a major role in co-creating a well-known work that has been the subject of multiple independent reviews." The latter is satisfied by Beale, so by implication he satisfies .  What else do you want? Significant coverage in reliable source, yeah, yeah, but ''what's the point of having secondary criteria then
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:AUTHOR||WP:AUTHOR)

Comment: though of course I have to declare an interest as the subject of the article.  But I genuinely cannot understand how, given that Questions of Truth is a notable book which has recieved multiple reviews in periodicals, the co-author does not qualify under .  It is also perhaps relevant to point out that the FT article in question was a full page article (very rare) that was largely about the work I am doing with my collaborators David G. Rand|Dave Rand and Robert May, Baron May of Oxford|Bob May. Is there any example of someone who has co-written a notable book, and had his work featured in a full-page article in the Financial Times|FT, and has c.100k 16k GHits being deleted from Wikipedia
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:AUTHOR)

Comment: add '''salt''' to taste) - As per EALacey, DGG and LessHeard vanU.  I still don't see how the subject satisfies , or  specifically.  Among other things, the discussion of collaboration is hindered by the fact that much of this has yet (apparently) to bear fruit.  And even then, it's still collaboration and not, so far anyway, of great quantity.  I think the subject falls somewhere between academic and businessperson: nowhere near enough publications for the former, and not especially distinguished for the latter (at least so far as I can tell).  That said, the subject has a lot of irons in the fire, and may yet become notable, so I'd be reluctant to salt the article.  But since it keeps floating up repeatedly (and seemingly arbitrarily), perhaps this strategy would ensure that subsequent resurrection attempts are more serious
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO||WP:AUTHOR)

Comment: As before (Afd3), I find myself intensely disliking the amount of equine battery going on here (Die Dobbin, Die!) and in no hurry to read QoT, which I think I'd detest. I'm also far from clear on just how important Beale's contribution is to his teacher / mentor / colleague's book is - It's seemingly not enough to justify alphabetical ordering on the dustjacket. That said though, I can't see how he can fail to mee . The book exists and is reviewed, and he's mentioned by name through those reviews. He's also increasingly citable in financial circles (Haldane et al). Doesn't mean I like it, but I can't see good cause to delete this
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:AUTHOR)

Comment: to Questions of Truth for the moment, and develop into a full article when/if some of the work he is apparently engaged in emerges from the shadows and is referred to in significant sources. At present, the article is based too much on weak (and apparently self-generated) sources, and too much on alleged collaboration with notable people, and it reads far too much like an inflated, self-indulgent and self-promotional  . For the moment, Beale is mainly (solely?) notable for his co-authorship of the book, and much of the material in this article is in fact about that book (see discussion on the Talk:Nicholas Beale|talk page about duplication of material), so a redirect would be appropriate. I can see a full and worthwhile article emerging in due course - but not quite yet. And (I'm sorry, but I must say this
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipuffery (WP:PUFF)

Comment: Four previous articles have been deleted and the fifth is not an improvement. One quarter of the article shows standard information: subject has a job and a few interests. Another quarter deals with a 1991 report on British industry with no apparent impact. The remaining half shows that the subject co-wrote a book and has worked with various people, and frequently engages in discourse, and maintains two websites. These achievements do not satisfy . Even if, for example, the websites were shown to be notable, a person working on the websites is not notable unless |verified by independent comment
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO||WP:V)

Comment: Excellent point, Vesal.  My reading is the same as yours--I think  is met.  As to EALacey's points, he appears to read in new, non-existent criteria: a) suggesting we have to in greater particularity describe NB's ''specific'' contributions to his most notable/co-written book, as though "co-writer" status is insufficient; b) that those contributions have to be a ''major theme'' in the commentary; and c) the book must have led to more coverage of NB's biography than the coverage we see here.  Those simply aren't part of the guideline.  NB meets the guideline.  As to my reflecting in the article elements of NB's career outside of his co-authored book, which are reported in a number of RSs, that's appropriate material for a bio.  It's not necessary that each such aspect be ''itself'' notable enough to warrant an article.  If the subject is notable, and has written additional books, or had his career as a consultant or writer covered in other RSs, or written other books, all of which are covered in RSs, that's perfectly appropriate for coverage in his article.  In fact, its normal course on wp
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:AUTHOR)

Comment: Thank you, EALacey, for your thoughtful response, and thank you, Epeefleche, for your efforts to rescue this article! It would be very useful if a something like a consensus can emerge on this issue, so that Beale clearly understands the problem. (You can see his incredulous response to DGG above!) I have the feeling that this article will keep returning unless the reason for deletion is made crystal clear. There are contradictory statements on the extent to which Beale satisfies  as co-creator of ''Questions of Truth'' as well as his other collaborations, and there is disagreements on the deeper question of whether more is needed than co-authorship, especially since the coverage is focused on the book. Then, a very serious question is what to make of largely self-supplied biographical information published by independent parties like Debrett's, Faraday Institute, and Cambridge University Press
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:AUTHOR)

Comment: I wonder if the deletes have read .  He seems to meet the suggested guidelines for inclusion.  "3. The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." Not sure if Google scholar results count or not. http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22Nicholas%20Beale%22%20%22Questions%20of%20Truth%22%20source%3A%22-newswire%22%20source%3A%22-wire%22%20source%3A%22-presswire%22%20source%3A%22-PR%22%20source%3A%22-press%22%20source%3A%22-release%22%20source%3A%22-wikipedia%22&hl=en&sa=N&tab=es The Journal of Cosmology does have an oversight review board before things are published in it, so his work published there http://journalofcosmology.com/QuantumConsciousness109.html adds to his notibility.  "2.The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:AUTHOR)

Comment: per the lack of neutral, third-party |reliable sources. The article is full of |puffery; I looked at all the sources in the article and agree with Rjanag's analysis of them. None of the sources are suitable to establish notability
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:PUFF)

Comment: So you say that it's ''not yet published'' but that the praise ''should guarantee'' its value. And ''very soon could (and most likely will) have a very serious impact''. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. . Plus you say you work with Mr. Beale, and your only contribution is this AFD vote? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/CTarnita
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CRYSTAL)

Comment: based on what everyone else has said already: to summarise: fails , fails , fails , possibly other guidelines or policies, apart from being vanity and puffery. I cannot believe that the subject of the article gave a ''keep'' vote, and questioning almost every other ''delete'' vote! I thought such behaviour was a breach of ? It should be noted that many of the ''keep'' votes are from new accounts or IP addresses - looking at the contributions, they are people who have done little or no Wikipedia editing - is the subject drumming up support for keeping this article
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO||WP:AUTHOR||WP:RS||WP:COI)