Deletion of Nicholas Beale (3rd nomination)

Comment: 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)  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
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest (WP:COI)

Comment: I read the above discussion and the article and don't see notability per . 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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)

Comment: 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 Wikipedia:Notability_(academics)#Criteria|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  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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CREATIVE)

Comment: Note the subject's latest http://starcourse.blogspot.com/2009/06/pettiness-of-wikipedia-but-good-news.html off-wiki attempt to |canvass support for his cause. What on earth have Dawkins and atheism to do with it
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Canvassing (WP:CANVASS)

Comment: there really are enough reliable sources within  to establish the basic facts - now described on the article's talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nicholas_Beale#Clearly_Reliable_Sources here
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V)

Comment: 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- editor
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest (WP:COI)