Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward Beck (professor) (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Favonian (talk) 17:34, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Edward Beck (professor)
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Procedural nomination; the previous AFD was challenged by administrator User:JzG, who argued that Edward Beck the person is not notable because most of the citations discuss Scholars for Peace in the Middle East with only passing references to Beck, and boldly redirected it to the organization's article. This action was, however, undone by User:GB fan, who insisted that it be discussed.

I agree with this position, but am taking it to AFD once more just so we can be perfectly clear on this. ViperSnake151  Talk  15:58, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:05, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:05, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:05, 19 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Agree with redirect: The article does not show any notability for this person that is distinct from his founding of SPME. The article is more about the organization than about the person. —BarrelProof (talk) 16:45, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * comment see AN/I Pete.Hurd (talk) 20:49, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * As Peter.Hurd has stated, an editor presumably the subject has raised a request to have the article concernging them deleted. Blackmane (talk) 02:10, 20 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete as reasonably requested by the subject, whether it is an article or a redirect. Thincat (talk) 08:55, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge and/or Redirect. Any relevant information about Beck can be woven into the organization article, and the title should be redirected to that article.  Agree with the OP that Beck does not appear to be notable outside of organization.  -- Jayron 32 14:36, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge with the organization article. White Arabian Filly  Neigh 14:59, 20 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. I tagged it a few days ago for notability, unaware that there had been a recent AfD on the page that resulted in keep until the tag was promptly removed.  Looking at that previous discussion, the sources offered and complete lack of any other sources I could find, I simply do not see evidence of notability.  Under WP:GNG, multiple reliable independent secondary sources addressing the subject in detail are required to establish notability.  You cannot become notable by writing about yourself or your ideas.  Notability is also WP:NOTINHERITED.  You cannot become notable just because you are somehow connected to something else that is notable.  The sources have to be independent and secondary and they have to actually be about you, offering their own thinking or analysis.  That just doesn't exist here.
 * Of most concern to me is the uncritical acceptance of the sources cited. Some don't even appear to exist.  For example, sources #4, #8 and #9 are Highbeam citations.  Through my university, I have Highbeam.  Guess what?  Those articles simply can't be found on Highbeam.  (I tried several variations on title, author, publisher, etc.  Nothing.)  Similarly, the only mention of the subject in source #10, the Inside Higher Ed page, is in an anonymous comment.  The rest of the sources are either obviously WP:PRIMARY, e.g., source #2, his resume, or nearly impossible check (I was not, e.g., able to find any of them at newspapers.com).  Not one source offers even a quote to help us guess what they report.
 * Sorry to have to say this, but I think we're being scammed. I don't believe any of the sources offered are actually helpful.  I don't trust any of them.  Further, I note that my own searches turned up nothing and that, in addition, when I checked Google Scholar, only two citations turned up with a total of only 182 citations.  (In academia, the threshold is about 1000 citations.)  His work has simply not had the impact that might allow a presumption of notability under WP:PROFESSOR.
 * This appears to be a clear delete and I have no idea why it was kept last time. This individual may be a very nice gentleman but so far as I can tell, he is simply not notable.  Msnicki (talk) 15:49, 21 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete - The organization is notable, the individual is not. Carrite (talk) 11:10, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete at best for now as I'm not convinced this is currently satisfying the necessary notability. SwisterTwister   talk  22:07, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per request from article subject. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  15:40, 26 April 2016 (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.