Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Benedict Beckeld


 * 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. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 01:32, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Benedict Beckeld

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not notable Volunteer1234 (talk) 02:15, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * THE ARTICLE HAS BEEN UPDATED WITH SOME OF THE PROFESSIONAL CREDITS OF THE AUTHOR.  Natacha Berling 01:33, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete no indepdent sources about him to show he passes GNG. Merely writting works is not enough to pass either the author or academic criteria, and there is no indepcation the works are impactful enough for him to pass either of those criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:38, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment The additions do not show indepdent coverage of Beckeld in reliable sources. They merely show he exists and writes and his works are available for purchase, this is not enough to show he is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:42, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Natacha Berling — Natacha Berling (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Sources are independent and reliable. They are. Happy Easter dear John.Natacha Berling
 * I challenge you to name even one source here that is from an indepdent, reliable source that provides indepth coverage of Beckeld. I will give one example. One source is a report that Beckeld is going to give a lecture on a subject. Generally what amounts to ads disguised as news for a lecture do not show notability. Beyond this, it is published in Madison Patch, part of Patch.com, a "local and hyper local" news platform that does not meet the requirements of a reliable source as far as I can tell. This is bascially a PR piece for an upcoming lecture in an extremely local publication. This is not the stuff notability is made of. Nor are listings of his works in directories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:53, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * To answer your comment about the lecture, I did choose this humble reference among others to illustrate his volunteering experience in Namibia. I start to wonder what kind of interests you pursue in insisting on deleting this page even though there are clear evidences of the relevance of this page here. His notability is demonstrated in the various references. I could have added more, I do not think it is necessary. His work is very good and smart for what I read, and I do believe he deserves this page. I disagree with your opinion but I do respect it. Peace. Administrators will decide then. All best. Natacha Berling
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 19 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. I can't find a single cite of his work on GS. Fails WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:28, 19 April 2017 (UTC).
 * Delete. The only one of his three supposed books that is even listed by Worldcat is his Ph.D. dissertation, writing a Ph.D. dissertation does not make one notable, and there seems little else here. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:29, 20 April 2017 (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.