Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicholas Beale (5th 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 and salt. Delete because the arguments for delete are more convincing and mostly based on policies, guidelines, etc., while the keep arguments are more vague and less concretely grounded (however, this is not to disparage those who did cite policies and guidelines in their arguments). Salt because a fifth successful nomination for deletion is quite telling about the notability of the subject with respect to Wikipedia standards, and to force any future article depicting the subject to fulfill all concerns before recreation. -- kur  ykh   02:10, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Nicholas Beale
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Several previous versions of this article have been created and brought to AFD, with a consistent balance of opinion in favour of deletion. I'd encourage editors to review the past discussions, but I would summarise the dominant view as being that while Nicholas Beale has collaborated with notable people (such as John Polkinghorne), neither his personal role in those projects nor his individual activity has received significant independent coverage.

In common with its predecessors, this version of the article relies heavily on the subject's own writing and promotional sources such as a foreword to his co-written book. The only developments apparent since it was last deleted (October 2009) are the publication of an article by Nicholas Beale in Think (which cannot yet have had much impact, if it is going to) and a mention in the Financial Times of a collaborative project.

Given the lack of change from its earlier incarnations, my suggestion is to delete this article. However, I admit that my view may be coloured by irritation at how this situation keeps recurring, and I'd like to see what editors with fresh eyes think of the article. As a compromise, I wouldn't object to converting Nicholas Beale into a redirect to Questions of Truth, the book with Polkinghorne that prompted most mentions of Nicholas Beale's name in the media, and including brief biographical information at that article. EALacey (talk) 18:36, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Addendum: if the article is deleted and not replaced with a redirect, I support the suggestions below to "salt" the page title. EALacey (talk) 18:21, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. It's worth adding that the repeated recreation of the article seems to have been prompted by Nicholas Beale himself complaining about the deletions on his blog, canvassing for support on Wikipedia, and even trying to change the No original research policy to make it easier for him to be used as a source in this article. Discussion here. His has been the most aggressive campaign to have his own Wikipedia bio that I recall in the five years I've been editing.  SlimVirgin  TALK  contribs 18:47, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Whether or not that's true, its irrelevant. Except that your comment suggests that your vote was made on an inappropriate basis, and therefore should be discounted accordingly.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the closing admin can decide what to discount. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 02:48, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete . Neutral. Over the course of the previous AfDs I went from keep, to weak keep, to delete, due to the continuing failure to clarify the rather borderline notability.  The current version does not show it any better. It is still possible of course that he might become notable in the future, but I think given the history that this should be salted, and recreation should require approval at Deletion Review, reqiuiring a clerar showing of additional convincing evidence.    DGG ( talk ) 20:15, 15 January 2010 (UTC) --on the basis of the various comments below, I simply cannot tell if he is notable, so I am back to undecided.    DGG ( talk ) 02:00, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi DGG. I really respect your judgement as an editor. But can writing a notable book, being a featured speaker at meetings at the AAAS, the RS, the Ri, having a full page article in the FT featuring my work, going from 10 0 k ghits etc.. really make ‘’anyone’’, even me, ‘’less’’ notable? NBeale (talk) 10:39, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete per a paucity of third party sources for an indication of notability, which is the usual stumbling block. However, I would also strongly direct reviewers attention to the following pages; User:Epeefleche/Nicholas Beale and User:Jmt007/Nicholas Beale and most particularly the talkpages of both. In both the only correspondent is User:NBeale, the subject, with helpful advice. It should be noted that Epeefleche is a long established editor (while Jmt007's entire contribution history is the half dozen or so edits to the above linked page) who has been so far unable to bring the article to mainspace. It concerns me that within the last few weeks there appears to have been a concerted effort to bring forward an article upon a subject, very largely advanced by the efforts of the subject concerned. For the reason that the campaign to create an article that has never been able to indicate it can be sustained by sufficient reliable third party sources to its notability remains undiminished, I also suggest that it should be salted so that notabilty may be required to be proven before it again is created - and taken to AfD. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:44, 15 January 2010 (UTC) ps. I shall be notifying Epeefleche and Jmt007 of this discussion.
 * I haven't (until LessHeard's friendly notice today, for which I thank him) ever made any edits to this article or any of its predecessors. But have now begun to do so.  Clearly, the article needs fixing-up, a process I've begun.
 * Second, just to clear up what I'm sure is an unintentional mischaracterization. When reviewers are "strongly direct[ed" in the above comment to look at User:Epeefleche/Nicholas Beale, the suggestion is made (unless I'm misconstruing the above) that NBeale created the page with my name on it, and did so as part of his concerted effort to bring forward an article on the subject.  However, from what I can tell, NBeale was not the editor who created that page with my name on it.  It was done so by another editor who I believe was seeking to be helpful, as -- seeing discussion on this topic -- I had asked on NBeale's talkpage (unsolicited) if I might see the best prior version of the article (and he, seeing that discussion and being a sysop with access to an earlier version, had chimed in that he would make one available).  I had thought at the time that I might work on it.  Although, as mentioned, I never in fact did so until a few hours ago (though I see that other editors -- including SlimVirgin -- did make edits to prior versions of that page).--Epeefleche (talk) 00:37, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The strong direct specifies the talkpages of both userfied variants - where NBeale offers assistance - and the general point that there have been 3 efforts in the last few weeks to place a BLP in mainspace, all of which are supported by the articles subject, which leads me to the suggestion of salting the article until as such time as notability is established. I regret if what I wrote reflected at all upon the editors who have hosted the material in good faith, that was not my intent. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:21, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. The variant with my name on it was placed there by another person (a sysop, offering assistance).  I've not finished, but I've already completely rewritten the article, without having looked at any versions other than the one here.  What I started on was lacking, but it already much better reflects notability (via mention of him and his work in various RSs).--Epeefleche (talk) 10:41, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Re LessHeard: This article was indefinitely salted in the past. I'm not sure how this was re-created; perhaps when I moved the page history to Epeefleche's userspace the original protection went there and this location became unprotected. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 22:06, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Any move that requires sysop flags undoes the protection afforded an article, and salting is simply protection of a deleted article. A quick review of WP:Userfy does not contain any suggestion in handling this. I think this is simply an unforseen consequence... although one which was quickly exploited, seemingly. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:30, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I have re-reviewed the AfD and the article. I am impressed by the efforts of Epeefleche and others into improving the article, and the quality and quantity of the references. I am still, however, not persuaded that there is sufficient third party sources that indicates that the subject, rather than some of his work and participation at various events, is notable. I continue to believe that the article should be deleted, although I would not think it inappropriate if some of the biography found itself used within the Questions of Truth article. I still believe the article should be salted, until a RS denoting notability of the subject is located. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:54, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete 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 WP:BIO. 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. Johnuniq (talk) 00:57, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep 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 WP:AUTHOR.  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 Dave Rand and 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 FT, and has c. 100k 16k GHits being deleted from Wikipedia? NBeale (talk) 01:22, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. The FT article is 34 paragraphs long, of which two paragraphs are devoted to the work of David Rand and Nicholas Beale. The article does not indicate Nicholas Beale's personal role in this project, and although it also describes Lord May's work it does not assert that Nicholas Beale has collaborated with him. EALacey (talk) 08:16, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Nevertheless it is the case. The best evidence on the web is Andy Haldane's paper Banking on the State which cites Beale, Rand, Arimpathy & May .. forthcoming. And he cites this work for providing the fundamental insight that diversification can make the system more fragile, which is the main policy conclusion cited. Bob May's papers and speeches on this also cite me. I agree this is not obvious from the FT article! NBeale (talk) 09:12, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. The article is now a far different one than when the first voters opined; admittedly, the earlier version failed to reflect many RSs.  Still more are out there, but I've worked on it enough now to vote.  Multiple RS mentions of the subject and his work squarely demonstrate the article's notability.--Epeefleche (talk) 10:48, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Question. How do people interpret the secondary notability criteria? WP:AUTHOR: "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 WP:AUTHOR. What else do you want? Significant coverage in reliable source, yeah, yeah, but what's the point of having secondary criteria then? Vesal (talk) 12:35, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. That's a fair question, and I've noticed a range of positions on what the secondary criteria should be for. My understanding is that subjects which meet them are likely to deserve inclusion but that (per Notability (people)) this "does not guarantee that a subject should be included". With regard to the guideline you've quoted, I would say that if someone's contributions to a work can be described adequately at the article on the work, are not a major theme in commentary on the work, and have not resulted in coverage of that person's biography, we shouldn't have an individual biographical article, especially not if the rest of that article would have to rely heavily on primary sources. In this case, Nicholas Beale's co-authorship of Questions of Truth can be covered at the book's own article; it should not be used as the basis for an article which attempts to describe his work as a management consultant, IT professional and philosopher with no significant independent commentary that would allow an appropriate assessment of his significance in those fields. EALacey (talk) 15:02, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. Excellent point, Vesal.  My reading is the same as yours--I think WP:AUTHOR 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.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:52, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. The relevant page states that "meeting one or more [secondary criteria] does not guarantee that a subject should be included", so it's reasonable to present other considerations that might weigh the balance against inclusion. Of course primary sources can be used to fill out the less notable parts of a biography, but when they account for nearly all content that isn't already included in another article, the page ceases to be an encyclopaedia article and becomes a CV. EALacey (talk) 18:16, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 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 WP:AUTHOR 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. Vesal (talk) 20:59, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Delete and salt Recreation of previously deleted article without substantial improvement. Show me some notable newspaper or magazine articles about this guy and his work and that he has been widely cited and/or authored or co-authored something that has had significant coverage in the media, and where his contribution has been duly noted. -Duribald (talk) 15:26, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Until flagged revisions are implemented, all marginally notable BLPs must be deleted. Cla68 (talk) 18:42, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This sounds like a POINTy vote; do you have an opinion relevant to this article in particular? r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 22:06, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 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 WP:NOR 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. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 22:06, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The concerns expressed regarding NBeales behaviour is orientated more toward their apparent non-comprehension of the need for neutral third party, peer reviewed if possible, references to establish notability. These concerns are the same since the first AfD, and are seemingly disregarded in every article recreation and subsequent AfD since. This, and the uncertain editorial independence of a couple of authorities upon which the article depends for evidence in designating the subjects areas of competence, fosters an editing and discussion environment where every potential positive is heavily promoted and each contrary viewpoint is obfuscated and sometimes ignored. Under such circumstances, the editors efforts do not seem directed toward clarifying the basis by which notability is determined but rather in building circumstantial (and circular) arguments by which minor references by reliable sources to the material in question informs the reliability of the source. In every discussion, NBeale has failed to comprehend the consensus view that such references are only useful in supporting a independent, third party, reliable primary source of the subjects notability. Comment upon the subjects record in the creation, editing, (and deletion) of the article is vital in understanding why issues raised in the first or second AfD remain relevant - they remain unaddressed. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:21, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * FWFW NBeale thinks: The 1st & 2nd AfDs were before QoT was published, so notability was debatable. Even by the 3rd you could argue whether QoT had had "multiple periodical reviews". The 4th AfD was a travesty - closed in 2 hours with no attempt to engage with or improve the newbie editor's article. However it is now incontrovertable that N.B. co-created QoT (85k ghits for "Nicholas Beale" "Questions of Truth", take your pick) which has been the subject of multiple reviews in periodicals (often by notable reviewers) and special sessions at places like the RS, AAAS the Ri, Hay where N.B. was a featured speaker. It seems abundantly clear that this meets WP:AUTHOR, that none of this was true in the 1st & 2nd AfDs, and that, as Rjanag points out, above the arguments that "we should delete this article because we deleted the earlier ones" are both irrelevant in terms of WP:POLICY and blatantly unfair.  If we wanted to run a fair process we would reframe the highly prejudicial lead-in, and if we are to have an honest process we should stick to the relevant points. NBeale (talk) 14:12, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Ghits for "Nicholas Beale" "Questions of Truth" is not really relevant, because it doesn't establish your notability as much as it establishes the book's notability. Basically, in that search the "Nicholas Beale" term is piggybacking off the hit count of the far more common "Questions of Truth" term, and judging by the snippets those results don't say much or anything about Nicholas Beale (many don't appear to say more than "by John Polkinghorne and Nicholas Beale"). And being the writer of a notable book does not in of itself make someone notable (more on this in my !vote below). r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 15:43, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete per lack of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:46, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. I agree that the alleged behaviour of WP editor NBeale should have no bearing on the question of whether Nicholas Beale satisfies the criteria for an article. However, the more often, and the more stridently, the former argues the case for the latter, the more strongly it suggests that notability is in fact insufficient. If he was truly notable, he would not need to rely on having his case argued at every turn by his alter-ego. Many of the sources used in the article are borderline, in that they seem to be largely self-published and/or self-promotion, or at least, with a few exceptions, not independent sources. I am inclined towards the view that Beale may now be just notable enough – but the more NBeale pleads, the weaker the case looks. SNALWIBMA ( talk - <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">contribs</b> ) 14:28, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I note that you deleted from the article RS reviews of the book that NB wrote, including one criticizing the authors. The reviews from the New Humanist for "cherry-pick[ing] which bits of scripture and dogma are to be taken as symbolic, and which as literally true," and described the Royal Society's decision to allow its premises to be used for the launch of this "weak, casuistical and tendentious pamphlet" as a "scandal." [20] Julian Baggini wrote in the Financial Times that "despite the complexity of some of the scientific issues discussed", the book "is a commendably clear read".[21] Publishers Weekly wrote: "Many readers will welcome this accessible format, but some may find the blurring of science and theology confusing,"[22] the Library Journal described it as intriguing and thought-provoking",[23] and Physics World said it is “remarkably even-handed ... a valuable lesson".[19] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Epeefleche (talk • contribs)
 * Not sure what the problem is here. I deleted that material simply because it was a wholesale duplication of stuff at Questions of Truth, which is where it belongs. <b style="color:darkblue;">SNALWIBMA</b> ( <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">talk</b> - <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">contribs</b> ) 22:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete After reviewing the sources in this article, I have to agree that the notability of the subject is not demonstrated by reliable, independent sources. I did my best to categorize the sources, which I have pasted below&mdash;the ones in bold are the ones I think might qualify as useful significant coverage, but for the most part the sources are just either a) not independent, b) just passing mentions, or c) not about Beale specifically.


 * Writings by NBeale
 * 2
 * 6
 * 8 (I assume that's what it's supposed to be, but the link is broken; Epeefleche, please be aware that links to database search results that you accessed when you were logged in to a database do not work for other users)
 * 13
 * 14 (not even, this is just a bibliographic citation for a co-authored paper)
 * Mini-bios/snippets (bios from his publications or from places where he works)
 * 3
 * 6
 * 7
 * 23
 * Articles where NBeale is quoted (but the article is not actually about him)
 * 1
 * 11
 * Reviews or mentions of QoT without anything about Beale himself
 * 15
 * 16
 * 17
 * 18
 * 19
 * 20 (this one is slightly more significant because it mentions NBeale's role in creating the book's concept)
 * 21
 * Other non-independent
 * 4: foreword from NBeale's own book
 * Unclassifiable
 * 5: just a listing of a place where Beale worked?
 * 9: Essentially just a press release about a report NBeale wrote; not about NBeale himself
 * 11: incomplete article snippet, not enough to see if it's important
 * 12: radio show that NBeale talked in


 * One of the key questions here is if this individual is notable enough that so many people would be trying to write an article about him if he weren't canvassing people to do so (as evidenced by his blog activity, involvement with other editors wanting to write about him, and the massive effort that's been made to dig up even the most marginal references). Based on the lack of knock-down sources, I don't think he is. Simply having written a notable book does not make someone notable (see, for example, Harvard Girl: none of the authors are notable). <b class="Unicode">r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 16:14, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, if the consensus of this debate is to delete, I believe that the indefinite create protection should be restored (it was only ever removed by my own accident, and AFAIK no one other than Nicholas Beale himself had objected to it.) <b class="Unicode">r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 16:14, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Hi Rjanag. Thanks for taking the trouble to do this. Unfortunately there are some quite major mistakes in your list, which you might want to correct (eg 12 mentions of Beale where you say "without mentions"). A corrected list is below. I should also mention that each article about NB was created by a different person. NBeale (talk) 21:42, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi User:Rjanag. Thank you for taking the trouble to do this, but I think you have made a few mis-classifications:
 * Writings by NBeale
 * 6
 * 8 (I assume that's what it's supposed to be, but the link is broken; Epeefleche, please be aware that links to database search results that you accessed when you were logged in to a database do not work for other users)
 * 13
 * 14 (not even, this is just a bibliographic citation for a co-authored paper)
 * Mini-bios/snippets (bios from his publications or from places where he works)
 * 6
 * 7
 * bio-details from independent third parties:
 * 3 - NBeale does not work at the Faraday Institute
 * 23 - and certainly not at Debretts.
 * 2 - the point of this ref is the statement that NB "is a social philosopher" (which oddly seems to be a point of contention). This is not part of the article that NB wrote.
 * Articles where NBeale is quoted (but the article is not actually about him)
 * 1
 * 11
 * Reviews or mentions of QoT without anything about Beale himself
 * 17
 * 16
 * Reviews or mentions of QoT with something specific about Beale himself
 * 15 "Written with longtime collaborator Nicholas Beale...Polkinghorne and Beale deserve credit"
 * 18 "Polkinghorne and Beale have provided their responses"
 * 19 (although I have to admit I do like this review) "Polkinghorne's former student Nicholas Beale runs a website on behalf of his mentor ...a compilation of 51 of these website questions with Beale's and sometimes Polkinghorne's answers...the composite Beale-Polkinghorne author ... Beale-Polkinghorne milk the tendentious version of the Anthropic Principle...as Beale-Polkinghorne exquisitely show...I found the Beale-Polkinghorne explanation of natural evil...as disgusting, though it is novel, as any..." In fact there are 10 mentions of Beale in a 13 para review.
 * 20 Polkinghorne and Beale each get 2 mentions
 * 21 Polkinghorne and Beale each get 1 mention, its a short review
 * Other non-independent
 * independent writer writing about NBeale
 * 4: foreword by Nobel Laureate Antony Hewish to QoT. Note this is not promotional blurb but an independent Foreword, not in any way written by Beale or Polkinghorne.
 * Unclassifiable
 * 5: just a listing of a place where Beale worked?
 * 9: Essentially just a press release about a report NBeale wrote; not about NBeale himself
 * 11: incomplete article snippet, simply
 * '''12: radio show with NBeale as principal speaker, and Julian Baggini has his debating partner (or "foil" according to Baggini)
 * Never did I ever, anywhere on this page, say "without mentions". I said some pages are just passing mention (i.e., they mention your name and don't stay anything substantial), so stop trying to misrepresent my comments by making up words I never said.
 * And you can drop the act, there's no need to refer to yourself in the third person. We all know you are Nicholas Beale; just call yourself "me". <b class="Unicode">r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 21:49, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Forgive me, you might want to check and modify that statement - your category "Reviews or mentions of QoT without anything about Beale himself;" which contains the review by Grayling with 12 mentions of Beale.
 * Yeah, I read that one already. Using your name 12 times (and not even your name, but "Beale-Polkinghorne") does not equal significant coverage. All those usages are not talking about you as a person, they're talking about you & Polkinghorne's analysis. It's quite common in academic writing (e.g., "Rizzi's (1997) proposal is that....."). <b class="Unicode">r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 22:53, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * er.."John Polkinghorne's former student Nicholas Beale runs a website on behalf of his mentor, on which.."?? Whether something is "significant coverage" is a matter of opinion, but whether it is "without anything" is a matter of fact. Similarly you claim (mistakenly and without any evidence) that I have worked at the Faraday Centre and Debretts. Please be reasonable. The relevant criterion per WP:AUTHOR is "played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work...that has been the subject of ...multiple independent periodical ...reviews." Are you saying that this criterion is not met? NBeale (talk) 05:48, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm saying that people who are actually notable aren't often people who are concerned too much about whether or not they're on Wikipedia. Whereas people who are just dying to get onto Wikipedia...well, you know. <b class="Unicode">r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 06:00, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * So we agree that WP:AUTHOR is met. And that the analysis you kindly did needs amendment. Good. (BTW if any author has claimed they don't care if they have an article on Wikipedia they are almost certainly lying. And where in WP:POLICY is this "if you care you aren't notable" to be found?)NBeale (talk) 06:14, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I never said I believe WP:AUTHOR is met, I avoided responding to your question because my opinion should already be abundantly clear by now.
 * And I most certainly do not think my analysis needs amendment; indeed, so far the only person who has complained about it is you. At least one editor below was perfectly happy with mine. Although I do appreciate the arrogance it takes to assume that your analysis is automatically the "correct" one and that you somehow have the right to tell other editors to amend their statements until they match with yours.
 * As for policy...for someone who seems so interested in harping about what is and is not WP:POLICY, you seem to have conveniently forgotten that WP:AUTHOR (which you repeatedly cite in your defense) is not a policy. <b class="Unicode">r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 06:19, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think that the above amply shows some mistakes that you've made in your representations. It's a bit disconcerting that they go one way, as was the case that led to the matter that resulted the RFA concerning your contributions. I hope that your pointing to "the closing admin can decide" above isn't, yet again as in the matter brought before the arbitrators, an indication that one of the people you are closest to on wp will close out this AfD.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:31, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The only people who have said they think I made mistakes are NBeale and you ("one of the people he is closest to on wp"). The fact that you disagree with my assessment of the sources doesn't make it a "mistake", it just makes you and NBeale bitter tendentious people who can't take a hint that the vast majority of editors here do not support your article. <b class="IPA">r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 05:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep or userify -- The problem is that the main contributor is writing autobiography. He does have published work, which may be notable, but the present article appears closely to mirror the user pages for two of his identities.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:40, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete and salt 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. Cunard (talk) 02:13, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Neutral on the AfD, but something's fishy. See original creator's conributions. This has happened before, with a possible sock creating it in somebody else's userspace.... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 05:50, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, Chiiners didn't create it in Epeefleche's userspace, it just looks like that because I moved the article history at the request of the Epeefleche/NBeale team. I don't think there was anything suspicious about the way Chiiners actually created it in mainspace (back in 2007). <b class="Unicode">r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 05:57, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Alright... and yet... seems weird someone dumps a complete article and then leaves, esp when there are 4 previous deletions listed... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 06:08, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Probably one of his blog readers...NBeale frequently does off-wiki canvassing to get people to come here and support him. Links have been provided in some of the previous AfDs (and I believe in the WT:NOR discussion or something like that). <b class="Unicode">r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 06:21, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I haven't even yet looked at the version Rjanag helpfully created for me. But as I've made most of the edits to this article simply by letting google lead me to various sources, I doubt it resembles what we have now appreciably.  But I'll take a look once I'm done mining google.  As to Rjanag's comment as to the "team", that's inappropriate and misleading.  All I ever did was ask to see the best prior version of the article, and that wasn't even supplied by NB -- but rather by Rjanag himself (as he well knows).  And LessHeard notified me of this AfD, not NB.  Until this AfD, though, I didn't even make one edit to this article in any version (userfied or otherwise).  Rjanag's snide accusation here is uncalled for, and reminiscent of troubling past comments by him in he played loose with the truth in a manner that could be expected to mislead others.  I would appreciate a retraction.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:40, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I will not make a retraction, but I will also not create drama and unnecessary distraction from the point at hand by going into an off-topic discussion here. If you want to ask about why I refer to you as a team you are welcome to do it elsewhere. <b class="Unicode">r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 06:45, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * We're not, you've supplied no evidence to support your antagonistic and baseless assertion which can only be intended to disrupt this AfD with misinformation, and I view that as a personal attack. As with your incivility in the past upon which various arbitrators have commented, I'm disturbed by your inappropriate behavior, and would ask that you desist.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:55, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Whatever. I already gave you an open invitation to discuss this disagreement as much as you want at some other page. I'm removing this from my watchlist now because I don't want a repeat of my last AfD with you. <b class="Unicode">r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 07:08, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete and salt. I am amazed, flabbergasted, I have never seen anything like this - the pomposity, the puffery, the lengths to which the subject of the article is going to defend "his" own article. Oh no, wait - I have seen it before:, . I commend Epeefleche for his/her efforts to research the subject, and to track down worthwhile sources, but I'm sorry, I think all of us are being conned here. Wikipedia is being used as a platform for self-aggrandisement, as an extension to the subject's blog and/or his resumé. This is gross misuse of the WP project. Delete, salt, move on.  GNUSMAS :  TALK  08:33, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * So if people tell blatant untruths to try to trash your reputation, and you respond to them (politely) you are attacked for conning, pomposity etc.. No-one can deny that this article meets WP:AUTHOR and the only policy that I'm aware of that is relevant to your post is WP:NPA. NBeale (talk) 11:02, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * See... there are two possibilities: A) you are not who our username claims you are and thus there is no personal attack or B) -- you are the article's subject and thus shouldn't have any say in this AfD per WP:COI. Please step back and let others decide. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 11:44, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete and salt. You know, I pop in to do some editing and AfD look-overs, and on a lark I enter Mr. Beale's name into the search function...and the article is up again, and facing deletion again.  Frankly, after a certain number of successful deletion arguments the onus needs to be on those wanting to put Mr. Beale into Wikipedia to say why he's notable rather than on those wishing to remove him, or on him achieving clear notability in addition to what he's already said to have achieved.  I leaned towards salting in the third discussion; I'm more convinced of the need for it now, given that this article has been deleted twice and speedily deleted once.  I'm tagging this one to watch now...if it isn't salted, I think we can all safely say that it'll be back soon.Tyrenon (talk) 10:45, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Dear self-professed proud deletionist: I don't know what it looked like at prior AfDs, but since I've edited this article (after it was put up for AfD) it barely resembles the prior version.  I think the current RSs, including FT articles, etc., may not have been in earlier drafts, and this bears a closer examination.  Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 11:00, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Epeefleche, I read the article over (again at your request). While it is improved over my recollection of previous versions (and you do deserve thanks for your efforts in this area), I'm still not convinced that Mr. Beale is himself notable.  I would respectfully say that the amount of apparent self-promotion (most importantly the fact that Mr. Beale can't seem to stay out of the debate on his own article) brings into question some of the arguments on behalf of the article, but even then I'm not knocking your work.  You did improve the article, I just don't think that it meets with the criteria for inclusion here.  I'd also like to note that I do support the redirect proposal mentioned above.Tyrenon (talk) 07:55, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. Beale co-created a major book, which is well known in science and religion on both sides of Atlantic. Has also done other important work.  Plenty of reliable sources for these facts.  --sofsonline signed for user by Plumbago (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 14:49, 18 January 2010 (UTC).
 * Keep -- As indicated by the recent article in the Financial Times, I collaborate with Nicholas Beale, and so I can offer validation of his statements regarding the notability of his work. In addition to co-authoring Questions of Truth, Nicholas is the driving force behind the research on financial stability discussed in the Financial Times, which is of great significance and has attracted the interest of many very high level scientists and policy-makers. And I found that "Nicholas Beale" on its own generates 16k ghits... User Drand14850 10:17, 18 January 2010 (EST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.196.7 (talk) — 209.6.196.7 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment - As a colleague of the subject's, then, perhaps you can help. I'm afraid it's not sufficient to "offer validation" anonymously. What we require are independent reliable sources that indicate the "interest of many very high level scientists and policy-makers" that you refer to. Can you point us in the right direction? Thanks. <b style="color:darkblue;">SNALWIBMA</b> ( <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">talk</b> - <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">contribs</b> ) 15:39, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - Excellent, you could perhaps point us to some of this work for starters. Ideally from the literature so that we can perhaps gauge its notability.  At the moment, too many references point back to a handful of weak sources.  --P LUMBAGO  17:39, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment- Our work is not yet published, but has been publicly cited here by Andy Haldane, the Executive Director of Financial Stability at the Bank of England, and described in some depth in a peer reviewed publication by one of the founders of mathematical biology Lord Robert May available at . An excerpt: "There is a question about the relationship between systemic risk and homogeneity within the banking system. N. Beale & D. Rand have brought this issue into sharp focus with a model whose essence can be illustrated as follows... In short, in this illustrative example of Beale and Rand’s more general analysis, situation A puts each individual bank at much greater risk than situation B, but conversely the entire banking system is at much greater risk in situation B than in situation A. The interest of individual banks is to move to the homogenizing limit of B (and arguably the Basel Accords prompted and/or facilitated this), but systemic risk is thereby greatly increased, to the detriment of the wider community. We have, in effect, what evolutionary biologists would call the Prisoner’s Dilemma or ecologists the Tragedy of the Commons." User:Drand14850 20:25, 18 January 2010 (EST)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.7.130 (talk)
 * Comment - Thanks for clarifying this point. I look forwards to seeing the finished work in print (especially because of the link with TotC), but as with some other work alluded to in the article, it's not yet published.  So we can't really judge it.  Furthermore, even when it is published, the "judgement of history" is not in.  It may turn out to be revolutionary, or it may languish unloved and uncited, or even attract opposing analyses.  Anyway, I guess what I'm saying is that unpublished work, while interesting, cannot help much with notability.  Even if it is used in a Bank of England speech (doesn't that break the embargo restrictions some journals place on work?).  --P LUMBAGO  10:34, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, this is excellent. Here we have a party other than NB referring to NB's work with May (something we were struggling to get good sourcing for).  That's just the sort of thing we need to reflect notability.  I've reflected in the article as refs, though the second should likely be moved to text.--Epeefleche (talk) 11:03, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Having followed this... "discussion" for a while, I go for delete. Most of the arguments against a deletion are either unverifiable personal opinions or border "wikilawyering" (including some borderline-trolling on user talkpages). Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 16:22, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Question Are editors seeking the deletion of this article acting because they consider it non-notable, or because they dislike it? We're required to be objective. If we should finally accept that QoT and Beale are both notable, then shouldn't this also be a place for recording the existence of far from complimentary opinions of it, such as AC Grayling's rather scathing Humanist review? Andy Dingley (talk) 17:22, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - Establishing notability, or otherwise, is what's required here. You may be confused in part because editors are occasionally referring to previously deleted iterations of this article.  This current iteration has been significantly improved since it was originally resurrected a few days ago, but its content is still largely secondary to the central issue of notability.  --P LUMBAGO  17:39, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep 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 WP:AUTHOR. 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. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:48, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Equine battery?Tyrenon (talk) 07:55, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * (Comment - cf. flogging a dead horse. --P LUMBAGO  08:37, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * (Thanks. Sorry...been a long day.)Tyrenon (talk) 09:01, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You were lucky; had it been me I would have merely alluded to the RHA... LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:46, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * keep co-created a significant work discussed in major scientific venues, collaborations with Bob May and Martin Nowak are quite important and he's reasonably well-known for other reasons. I think that people interested in science and religion will feel that his collaboration with Polkinghorne is sufficiently noteworthy that they may want to find out something about the author.Bernard.silverman (talk) 22:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC) — Bernard.silverman (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment - I notice that User:Bernard.silverman's contributions seem to be the article about himself Bernard Silverman, adding a link to the article from another article, and (after over a fortnight's non-editing) this AFD. The person that started the Bernard Silverman article? None other than User:NBeale! . So I can only believe that Mr. Beale is asking his friends to vote for keeping this article. Surely that's not the Wikipedia way. So could the closing admin be aware of this when analysing the keep votes. Rapido (talk) 14:02, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * keep While Nicholas is not a professor, and rather is more of a business person, he puts much time and effort in tacking questions of importance and get professors to work with him on them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.172.86.38 (talk) 08:51, 19 January 2010 (UTC) — 93.172.86.38 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * redirect 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 WP:PUFF . 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 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) User:NBeale must learn to keep his hands off it. He would be better employed reading and understanding WP:COI than constantly trying to promote this article. <b style="color:darkblue;">SNALWIBMA</b> ( <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">talk</b> - <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">contribs</b> ) 09:18, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Three comments. 1) There are now many sources in the article as it now stands that are not self-generated (including three FT articles, for starters).  2) As I wrote much of it, and am not NB and have never met NB, it is not self-indulgent/self-promotional; more to the point, it accurately reflects the sources, so is not the stuff of which puffery is made.  3) As we already discussed, there are under 20 words in the article -- other than quotes -- that relate to the co-authored book, the reference to the book is summary as compared to the wp book article, and the two major quotes here specifically refer to Beale -- your continued effort to squeeze mention of the book out of this article is not supported by any policy, and is inconsistent with wp articles on authors generally.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * (1) I didn't say it has no other sources but that it relies too much on self-generated sources. (2) I didn't say it is self-promotional etc, but that it "reads far too much like ...", which it does, regardless of who actually wrote the article. (3) There are not 20 words, but three paragraphs, that largely duplicate Questions of Truth and should be cut - but that discussion is for another place. <b style="color:darkblue;">SNALWIBMA</b> ( <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">talk</b> - <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">contribs</b> ) 09:51, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) as long as there is sufficient RS, which I believe is evident, it matters not whether there is in addition self-generated sourcing material. 2) Much of what has been pointed to as self-generated is material such as that from Cambridge University Press and Cambridge University itself; there has been no evidence it is self-generate, and NB has said it is not (and Slim has warned in the past about not believing people who have blps).  3) All I did was reflect what was in the RSs.  Some of that is positive.  Most is factual.  And some is clearly negative (eg, some reviews).  That the RSs provide info you find positive is not the stuff of which puffery is made -- puffery is made form inflating what positive sources say, or hiding the negative info from sources.  That's not take place here.  4) All the material other than quotes (one of which does not appear in the book article) is under 20 words.  And the quotes focus for the most part on Beale, mentioning him by name.  Not sure why you would want to hide that info from readers of his bio.--Epeefleche (talk) 10:21, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think that WP:PUFF is ever any reason to delete an article, or to delete this one. Copyedit it mercilessly, because I would agree with your WP:PUFF comment, but I can't see how any degree of puffery on a notable or non-notable topic moves it from being one to the other. It makes it harder to see, certainly, but the crux of WP:N is what the external sources state about it, not what the content on our page claims. Painting that with purple prose doesn't change the 3rd parties. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:38, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete (add salt to taste) - As per EALacey, DGG and LessHeard vanU. I still don't see how the subject satisfies WP:BIO, or WP:AUTHOR 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.  --P LUMBAGO  09:25, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Exactly how many publications does one need to become an academic? This sounds like a horribly subjective place to start counting. WP:AUTHOR permits "a (i.e. single) significant or well-known work", which is seemingly qualified by the number of reviews it garners. Now if QoT is agreed to be notable (I don't hear that it isn't), and QoT has collected reviews from FT & Grayling, then it would seem to be a "significant" work. Now I don't personally see Beale as terribly important in the grand scheme of things, and very much the junior partner in his co-authorship, but to deny him notability on that basis would require us to start making some very subjective judgements of his contribution as being too minor - by the objective interpretation of WP:N, he seems (IMHO) to pass. I see introducing that sort of subjective consideration as a bad thing for the encyclopedia as a whole, far worse than suffering a borderline article to live. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:34, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * 'Comment - Yes, this is somewhat subjective, but my reading of item #3 of WP:AUTHOR is that a demonstrably "significant or well-known" work has not been (co-)created here. QoT has garnered reviews, as many books do, but is it "well-known"?  Depends who you ask.  Is it "significant"?  It's far too early to say (ask again in 2-3 years).  As I say above, I definitely would not rule out the subject becoming notable, but I do not interpret either WP:BIO or WP:AUTHOR as supporting current notability.  Sticking with QoT, I would probably judge it as "significant" if (on it's own; the subject may yet write more books) it were to make a lasting impact in relevant circles.  As it aims to fill out aspects of science, religion and philosophy (judging from the blurb on Amazon), I might expect to see treatments of it there (academic or popular), for instance (perhaps, cf. TGD, someone will write a riposte?).  --P LUMBAGO  12:52, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Just on the QoT point -- Keep in mind that for a book to be notable, it need not be famous. It is notable if "The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself, with at least some of these works serving a general audience."  It was reviewed in the Financial Times, New Humanist, Library Journal, Physics World, Episcopal Life, Publishers Weekly Science News,  and DigitalJournal.  The Financial Times listed the book on their "FT critics’ hottest holiday reading" list in July 2009, and Episcopal Life also put it on its rec list.  It was at one point the # 1 seller in a couple of amazon categories.  That's way more than is needed for notability under the most stringent of tests--we don't limit notability to seasoned books that have had at least 2-3 years on the market, or bestsellers, or the most famous books of the decade.  QoT book has just the sort of RS coverage that easily enable books to passes notability tests at AfDs on books  ... not even a close call.--Epeefleche (talk) 13:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment - Great! We can have an article on QoT.  My point was on the WP:AUTHOR criterion for author notability, not that for books.  I remain unconvinced that any of the WP:AUTHOR requirements are met.  Sorry.  --P LUMBAGO  13:53, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * If I were to publish a book tomorrow, the FT wouldn't choose to review it. They did choose to review QoT, so someone at the FT, who I suspect is something of a WP:RS on such matters, considered it worth their newsprint. Now I've worked in magazines before, I know what pressure and inducements are placed by publishers to gain such reviews, but the luxury of being the stature of the FT (or Grayling) is that you do get to stay largely above such things. If it weren't for QoT I would probably be inclined to delete here, but gaining that level of review interest, and from the bodies that chose to review it, swings it IMHO. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:57, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * But if you co-wrote a book with an eminent person, perhaps they would review it. Nobody doubts the notability of QoT, but there seems considerable doubt about the notability of its junior author. <b style="color:darkblue;">SNALWIBMA</b> ( <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">talk</b> - <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">contribs</b> ) 14:27, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I can't see any objective, policy-based and verifiable way in which I can claim that Beale's role in authorship was too minor to count for notability. Any judgement I might make in that direction would seem (AFAICS) to be subjective and thus inapplicable. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:28, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Plus, its just possible that Polkinghorne might not choose to co-write a book with Andy, for reasons that bear on what Andy has to offer to the process (no criticism of Andy intended).--Epeefleche (talk) 23:17, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - Yes, but this is merely a possibility. Something more tangible is preferable.  Despite your (Epeefleche's) sterling efforts to improve the article (and it really has improved since it was resurrected), I remain unconvinced that the subject limbos the WP:BIO bar.  The (still) excessive reliance on a single FT article that references the subject among a number of others still smacks of desperation.  Similarly the cite of the foreword from QoT - would we really expect anything other than glowing praise here?  There's even a cite to an unpublished paper - hardly a WP:RS.  Anyway, that these still appear in spite of herculean efforts is not a good sign.  --P LUMBAGO  22:10, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You should fear my mighty Erdos number, for it is quite embarassingly low for anyone who's not a genuine mathematician (I'm thick, but I worked with smart people). I confess that I have previously co-authored like a slut, just for the geek points. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:52, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep – Clearly notable as co-author of Questions of Truth and significant additional coverage/publications in FT, Harvard Business Review, Think etc.. StylesES (talk) 15:19, 19 January 2010 (UTC) — StylesES (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete and salt. Still fails WP:BIO. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 20:08, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete and salt. Does not meet BIO. Kittybrewster  &#9742;  22:51, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I know I said I was withdrawing from this conversation, but I want to again point out something about Questions of Truth for Andy Dingley and some of the other participants. Contrary to what people are saying above, being involved in a notable book does not automatically make someone notable; I already gave the example of Harvard Girl, a book that is unquestionably more notable than QoT (seriously, there is absolutely no measure by which QoT even compares) and yet none of its authors are notable. Also, people above seem to be taking it as a priori that Questions of Truth is notable, but in fact even that is questionable. The person who created and has made more edits to it than any other editor (twice as many as the 2nd-place editor, and 1/3 of all edits to the article) is NBeale himself. It's not like this guy wrote the Bible or something; he wrote a book that is marginally notable at best, and even then he only played a junior role in it (as someone pointed out above, a role not even big enough to justify alphabetical ordering of the authors). So in short, harping about Questions of Truth is simply not a useful way to prove notability. <b class="IPA">r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 23:05, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That's a red herring. And a severely flawed one at that.  The book as Rja well knows is notable if it has been "the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself, with at least some of these works serving a general audience.  This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles ... and reviews."  That's clearly the case here.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete and salt. Insufficient independent coverage of the the subject to satisfy notability requirements. <sub style="color:#007700;">wjemather <sup style="color:#ff8040;">bigissue 08:29, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete and salt - WP:BIO states that A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published[3] secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent,[4] and independent of the subject. I can't see a single source in the article that meets this criterion. I also agree with other users that co-authoring a book with a more notable person does not make one automatically notable, as relationships do not confer notability. Gatoclass (talk) 10:43, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * QoT is not only the subject of reviews that meet notability according to WP:AUTHOR (would you disagree?), but those reviews also mention Beale's part in authoring it, to a level that I consider meets WP:AUTHOR for him personally (some are far from complimentary). This isn't inheritance (I agree, inheritance wouldn't be enough), it's independent coverage. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:04, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, but he's not the subject of such reviews. Of course, he is likely to get at least a passing mention in these reviews, but the subject of a book review is the book itself. Gatoclass (talk) 11:09, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It's true. His work (I believe the sources show he wrote most of that book) is the subject of the reviews -- though some clearly mention him by name as well, so they appear to be aware of his existence.  If you deleted from bios every coverage of the person's acts, you would be left with their place and date of birth, and little else.  It is the person's acts (including books they write) that make them notable, and there are plenty of substantial reviews of that book.--Epeefleche (talk) 11:46, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That seems like sophistry IMHO. You're correct in that he's not the literal subject of the review (if we assume "subject" to be a single-valued property) but that's surely in excess of anything WP:AUTHOR implied by its use of the word "subject". These are not reviews that review the book, list the authors and no more, they review the book, and do also discuss Beale's role within it. I would see that as being adequately "the subject" for the purposes of WP:AUTHOR. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:00, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * that's surely in excess of anything WP:AUTHOR implied by its use of the word "subject". 
 * Okay, I guess you're entitled to that interpretation, but it's not mine. I read it as principal subject, and I think as a minimum any BIO should be able to demonstrate that. If a person is really notable, it shouldn't be a problem to find an article or two in reliable sources dealing with the subject as the principal or sole topic. If there are no such sources, chances are that the notability of the individual concerned is at best iffy. Gatoclass (talk) 12:56, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * On reflection, I think the above is something of an overstatement, although as a general rule of thumb (for BIOs of living persons at least) I think it's a good one. My basic point is that the individual in question should have been written about by reliable sources as a subject of interest in his own right, and that is not the case here. Gatoclass (talk) 14:13, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I could show you a number of newspaper/magazine interviews with me specifically. I'm not notable at all. If this guy has been duly noted for his accomplishments, why aren't there any interviews with him or articles specifically about him and his work in general, in relevant publications? -Duribald (talk) 12:59, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If those interviews are about something significant, you might indeed be notable. The reason we discourage autobios is that people are not a good judge of their own notability, in both directions.     DGG ( talk ) 01:56, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * There are many academics that satisfy WP:PROF without a doubt, but have not been subject of such media coverage. The example from the last AfD was David Eppstein; can you find a single source in that article that would satisfy SlimVirgin's standard? Hence, whether Beale satisfies WP:AUTHOR is an important consideration. As it seems clear what the majority of established editors here think, it would be good to amend the guideline to reflect current practice, please see Wikipedia talk:Notability (people). Regards, Vesal (talk) 21:31, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Authors are notable because of the books they write, not the details of the personal life. The author of important books is notable, and the books are shown to be notable by being the subject of independent publication, normally reviews is RSs. The question is whether he is indeed the principal author of the works reviewed. He just might be, and I have thus changed my !vote above to Neutral.    DGG ( talk ) 01:56, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete and salt - Still fails WP:BIO. EdJohnston (talk) 21:41, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete and salt - fails WP:BIO.—Sandahl (♀) 21:48, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. One concern is that Beale is presenting sources as independent when in fact he wrote the material himself, or supplied the words. For example, he cites as a source for his being a "social philosopher" the blurb accompanying an article he wrote for Think. I said on talk that he probably supplied those words himself, because he is not a philosopher and no one but him would call him that. He replied: "I'm almost sure that the person who wrote 'Social Philosopher' for Think was the Editor (a professional philosopher at the U of London), it is a journal published by the Royal Institute of Philosophy and he is a professional philosopher." I wrote to the people who publish Think to ask who would have written that. They replied, "authors are always asked to provide their own descriptions of themselves to accompany articles, and that is what is then used. The self-descriptions authors provide are not checked." (This is quoted with their permission; will forward to the closing admin on request.) I believe NBeale would have known this when he implied otherwise. SlimVirgin  TALK  contribs 04:35, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That's not conduct we'd encourage in an editor, but I still don't see that it alone would break WP:N. If sources exist that are independent and support WP:N, then those on their own are enough. If he adds puffery too, that doesn't invalidate the first sources. I believe we do have those sources (FT, Grayling for a couple). Andy Dingley (talk) 17:48, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The Grayling article is not about Beale. It's about the book and its launch, and is highly critical in some of the same terms as we're discussing this AfD, in fact. The FT ref is just a mention; it's not about him. The rest are things he has written himself, or descriptions of himself he has supplied. Giving the impression that those sources were independent was very misleading, and it speaks to the issue of notability in that someone who was notable would not need to do any of this.  SlimVirgin  TALK  contribs 18:01, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * But are they highly critical of him? WP:N can be adverse too. I'm not looking for compliments or recommendation here, just significant mention. Personally (and if I'm wrong, I'm wrong), I consider that these are. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:07, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree w/Dingley. Furthermore, wasn't there once a core policy entitled "No original research", as well as a policy entitled "No personal attacks"?


 * What makes this especially peculiar is that just last month Slim argued vociferously that a writer (whose AfD Slim waas supporting) should have information reflected in his article that was only reflected on his homepage. And that no book publisher, magazine publisher, or other third party had reflected themselves.  Slim wrote: "I think you need to be very careful here. This is a living person whose livelihood depends on his honesty. It's perfectly standard to source a person's education to their own website, or to information they've given about themselves to their publisher. Yet here you are questioning it, without any grounds.", and "Just a heads-up about BLP. Regarding your comments about Cook's qualifications being sourced only to his website, you're coming close to calling him dishonest. I know that's not your intention, but some of your comments are giving that impression. Per BLP and common sense, there's no reason at all to suspect that Cook's education is not exactly what he says it is. It's quite standard to source a BLP's qualifications to their own statements about it, for obvious reasons. We have no reason to behave differently in this case.", and: "I wrote that part of the policy, and it is certainly not intended to be used to make people look like liars, which is what is being done here. Enough, please.

--Epeefleche (talk) 19:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Please stop the misleading comparisons. I was talking only about that person's education, just as here I haven't questioned whether Beale studied maths. What I question is his notability, and the independence of the sources he claims are independent. That is the key difference, that he presented sources as independent when they weren't. I'm not going to reply again, Epeefleche, because this is just repetitive, and you seem to be twisting what people say, so there's no point. SlimVirgin  TALK  contribs 19:52, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete and salt fails bio.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:16, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete and SALT - based on what everyone else has said already: to summarise: fails WP:BIO, fails WP:AUTHOR, fails WP:RS, 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 WP:COI? 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? Rapido (talk) 20:02, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - I am a Mathematics postdoc at Harvard, working with Martin Nowak and Dave Rand in evolutionary dynamics. I am also working with Nicholas Beale on the financial stability project (although my involvement is recent and hence I am not a co-author on the paper with Rand and May). As Dave Rand also said, Nicholas has been the driving force behind this project. The work has already been presented to many people in the field and has garnered interest and received praise from economists at the Fed and the Bank of England. Even though this work is not yet published, the involvement of famous scientists as May and Nowak and the praise of experts as Andy Haldane should guarantee in some sense for its value. I think Nicholas deserves a mention on Wikipedia anyway because of co-authoring Questions of the Truth; all I want to point out is that, besides co-authoring this book, he also has a very active scientific involvement which very soon could (and most likely will) have a very serious impact on the financial world.CTarnita (talk) 14:31, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 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. WP:CRYSTAL. Plus you say you work with Mr. Beale, and your only contribution is this AFD vote? Rapido (talk) 14:41, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - I'm saying that in my opinion he deserves a mention anyway because of his book, which has been subject to multiple reviews and has given rise to important discussions. I would think that this is enough of a reason. Nobel Laureate Tony Hewish, in the preface to Questions of the Truth, praises Nicholas for "an outstanding reputation" and recognizes how this book is great because of the dialogue between Beale and Polkinghorne, two people coming from different backgrounds and having different perspectives. So I think the co-authorship of this book alone should entitle Nicholas Beale to a mention on Wikipedia (at least because people who have read the book might want to know more about NB). But from the discussions so far I understood that his scientific activity is also under debate and I thought I should offer an honest account of this part, which I am more familiar with. It is a bit unfortunate that at the time of this debate the work is not yet published and I understand Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. My post was not intended as "Keep because of forthcoming work" but "Keep because of the book (which I thought was obvious) and because he does seem to have an outstanding reputation, even scientifically, since he gets to work with giants like May and Nowak and his work gets to be praised in the FT by experts like Andy Haldane". Not many people can claim this. As for your question - "Plus you say you work with Mr. Beale, and your only contribution is this AFD vote?" - I'm not sure I understand it. My only contribution to what? CTarnita (talk) 15:34, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - By contributions I am referring to edits to Wikipedia. As you don't appear to be a previous editor to Wikipedia, I am curious about where you heard about this Article For Deletion nomination? Rapido (talk) 15:55, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - Well, I thought the answer was obvious, since I said that I work with both Nicholas Beale and Dave Rand (who posted recently on the same thread).CTarnita (talk) 16:04, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * @Rapido: Why, he was recruited by Beale himself to vote here, of course. Beale has never hesitated before to do off-wiki canvassing. <b class="IPA">r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 16:06, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - I think it's actually Ms Corina Tarniţă, she and Beale are featured in a photo here . But yes, as I suspected Mr Beale is canvassing his friends and colleagues for support (stealth canvassing according to WP:CANVASS). He seems to have done this in previous AFDs on this article too, judging by old blog posts, where he actually accuses the AFD nominations and delete votes as being part of a conspiracy by Dawkins Defenders! Rapido (talk) 16:26, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - I apologize if I broke any Wiki rules - I thought I was allowed to state an honest opinion about a subject I am familiar with. I did not do it to bias the votes - from what I understand, in this discussion, it is not the number of votes that counts, but the quality of arguments. I go to Wiki often for pretty much any question I have and I appreciate the quality of the articles. By no means would I want to alter that; but I do not understand why, for instance, it is more relevant and important to read about what Paris Hilton thinks of one night stands (see wiki article on paris hilton) than about Nicholas Beale's contribution to religion and/or science. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CTarnita (talk • contribs) 16:52, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - You are right that it's not the number of votes that count. And I don't think that you should apologise for stating your opinion, however Beale is canvassing for support from people he knows, in order to campaign for the article to be kept. He should apologise for this behaviour as it is against Wikipedia rules. If he is as notable as he claims he is, then surely he has no reason to ask his friends to lobby here for the article to be kept? Rapido (talk) 17:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * (ec) Comment. No rule broken, and no apology needed! I think many of us would indeed agree that Nicholas Beale's contribution to the world is in all probability more important than Paris Hilton's. The trouble is that Wikipedia is a tertiary source, and works strictly according to rules such as verifiability, relying solely on reliable sources. At present, in the judgement of most contributors to this discussion, the importance of Beale's contribution is not yet sufficiently recognised and commented on in such sources to merit inclusion in this encyclopaedia. And it is not sufficient that several people, albeit with the best of intentions, come along to vouch for the significance of his work. Such unpublished opinions are just hearsay - and the reason for treating such contributors (SPAs, in Wikipedia jargon) with suspicion is that it strongly suggests that Beale is canvassing for support - and that in turn suggests that he in fact recognises that he does not pass the notability test, and therefore hopes to rely on the support of friends and colleagues. But thanks for your comments. <b style="color:darkblue;">SNALWIBMA</b> ( <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">talk</b> - <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">contribs</b> ) 17:11, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment.@Rapido and @Snalwibma: I maintain my (perhaps subjective) opinion to keep, but I understand and appreciate your point. Thanks for the clarifications.CTarnita (talk) 17:35, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - good article on someone who is most likely notable.--Oneiros (talk) 16:18, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Would you care to explain why you think the subject is "most likely notable", instead of just making a vague wave? <b class="IPA">r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 16:24, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:Author applies, but isn't enough for notability (as stated above), just a strong argument. The quality of the article together with WP:Author (and me being an inclusionist) makes we want to keep the article.--Oneiros (talk) 16:40, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete and replace with redirect to QoT The more SPAs that appear, the more inclined I am to !vote. Having read AC Grayling's review (which I confess I enjoyed - reviews like that are getting rarer these days), I'm having doubts about the notability of the book itself - apart from that conferred on it by the review... I see little else in the article to make me want to keep it. Sometimes getting an article on Wikipedia can be double edged - I recall one chap desperate to have an article, and then when he realised that other people could edit it - and do quite good research - he was desperate to have it deleted. (It still survives...) If sufficient reliable sources - indisputably reliable - then maybe re-create. But not as it stands. Is there a sort of half-salt procedure (lo-sodium?)? Peridon (talk) 16:56, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete and salt, obscure author, no independent sources that discuss Beale as their subject, which are needed to establish notability. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:15, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep I wonder if the deletes have read WP:AUTHOR. 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.  The Journal of Cosmology does have an oversight review board before things are published in it, so his work published there  adds to his notibility.  "2.The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique."   D r e a m Focus  18:33, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The idea that books such as "Constructive Engagement: Directors and Investors in Action" are either significant or well-known is the place where your argument falls on its face. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - no evidence of published work in recognised journals. Any genuine philosopher would have at least a handful of these.Editor with a background in philosophy (talk) 19:07, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Note to closer: This AfD is set to end not before 18:36 (UTC) today, 22 January...for the sake of process, please no one close it anytime earlier than that. Thanks, <b class="IPA">r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 02:40, 22 January 2010 (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.