Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicholas Beale (4th nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 speedy delete. No, seriously, whilst G4 is re-creation of deleted material, I think we can safely say that a markedly worse version of the deleted material is speediable. Also the new version was a completely unsourced BLP ("X is a Christian apologist")? No. If this person is truly notable, it should be possible to write an article proving that is the case (probably using the far superior originally deleted version). Black Kite 23:01, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Beale[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Nicholas Beale (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Procedural nomination. A previous version of this article (administrators only, sorry; if anyone wants to see the old version I will temporarily recreate it in my userspace) was deleted through consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicholas Beale (3rd nomination). A couple months later the article was recreated by the single-purpose account User:Jmt007. The re-created version was significantly worse than the deleted version and did not address any of the reasons for deletion—as you can see, the new version is almost entirely unreferenced (of the two "references" supplied, one is Beale's own book) and contains no third-party, independent coverage of this individual. I speedily deleted it as re-creation of deleted content, and since then User:NBeale, who also happens to be the article subject, has been bugging me asking to have it re-created because the version I deleted wasn't "identical" (which is correct--compared to the older version, this version is a crock). So I'm bringing it back to AfD. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 21:46, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete (as this is only a procedural nomination, I feel I might as well also offer my !vote). Worse than the version that was deleted before, and the only user who seems to have strong feelings about bringing it back is a user in a conflict of interest. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 21:46, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This should be deleted as a recreation of deleted content. There is nothing new in this version that would negate the opinion of those who commented at the previous discussion. An appropriate course of action would be for Nbeale to go to deletion review. Kevin (talk) 22:02, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per my discussion of the subject at the last AfD.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 22:05, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Agree with Kevin; if our process require a new AFD because a worse article is put up, then there is something wrong with our process. I can't see the old one, but if this version does not address the issues raised in AFD #3, then it should be speedied via a liberal interpretation of G4, and (again, echoing Kevin) NBeale should head to DRV. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:07, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I supported the original article, but this restoration is far from acceptable. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:08, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:N and no sources. MiRroar (talk) 22:09, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agreed that it shows the (marginal) notability even less well. It therefore certainly does not answer the objections. I !voted weak keep last time, but if consensus has changed it will take a much stronger article than this to show it. I can't really say it would be a good idea to go to DRV until that is written in user space. What would help best, of course, is if the subject did something unequivocally notable, like authored a really significant book which had reviews to show its importance. DGG ( talk ) 22:12, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It is clear that the subject is a good person with some supporters who want to place an article here. However, there are no secondary sources that indicate notability and the requirements of WP:BIO are not met. There are many people who have written a few minor books and articles, and who belong to various organizations. That's why we have notability guidelines. Johnuniq (talk) 22:45, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this article about a non-notable individual. Also a lack reliable sources. Crafty (talk) 22:51, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nicholas_Beale_(4th_nomination)&oldid=1142279088"