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 keep‎. I am sufficiently convinced that notability can be demonstrated through sources for the subject of this article. (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter123 (gas) 17:11, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Beal[edit]

Peter Beal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:ANYBIO for the following reasons.

1. https://www.ukwhoswho.com/display/10.1093/ww/9780199540884.001.0001/ww-9780199540884-e-6900 - primary source and not part of Wikipedia's notability criteria.

2. https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/acref/9780199576128.001.0001/acref-9780199576128 - Primary source and it's just a listing so not significant.

3. https://blogs.ucl.ac.uk/dh/tag/manuscript-studies/ - a blog with no consensus on its reliability.

4. https://www.thebritishacademy.ac.uk/fellows/peter-beal-FBA/ - the website for an academy that he is a member of.

Nothing that satisfies WP:NACADEMIC and general notability should always come before the alternative notability criteria. Signal Crayfish (talk) 18:02, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:09, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:09, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:09, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:10, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep WP:SK3. Together with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Gray (literary scholar) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anthony Guest, the third of a series of pointy and bad nominations by a nominator who refuses to accept the validity of WP:PROF#C3 (which Beal passes). If the nominator will not stop doing this on their own they need to be prevented from continuing this bad pattern. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:01, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  How does he pass C3 for Prof, I can't find sourcing to support this. Sourcing is rather scant to be honest. Nothing in RS. Oaktree b (talk) 00:34, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Do you see the first piece of text after his name in the article, FBA? It is linked. Go learn what the link means. Also go re-read WP:PROF#C3, the part that says "For documenting that a person has been elected member or fellow (but not for a judgement of whether or not that membership/fellowship is prestigious), publications of the electing institution are considered a reliable source.", and then notice that there is in fact a footnote linking to exactly this kind of source. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:46, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I did and I didn't understand what it was. So again, how does he pass C3? Oaktree b (talk) 21:26, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  And a one line citation is fine, but we need more than that if you want to keep an article here. Do you have anything else besides a one-line listing? That's not enough for the article to be kept. And please keep the snark to yourself. Oaktree b (talk) 21:28, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Satisfies WP:PROF as a Fellow of the British Academy: [1]. He also has a festschrift ("In the Prayse of Writing: Early Modern Manuscript Studies: Essays in Honour of Peter Beal"). He also satisfies GNG and BASIC. He also satisfies AUTHOR, with multiple periodical book reviews, such as: [2][3] [4] [5][6][7] [8][9][10]. James500 (talk) 08:27, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Perhaps passes Prof C3, but with no sort of extensive sourcing beyond a one line mention in a repository, we don't have enough to keep the article. Perma-stubs aren't really what we're looking for in Wiki Oaktree b (talk) 21:29, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  You are now as guilty of both failing to apply our notability criteria, and of failing to apply WP:BEFORE, as the nominator. The FBA link is more than one line. It is already enough by itself to satisfy our notability requirements. And if you want plenty more material to fill out an article (and to satisfy another notability criterion, WP:AUTHOR), search JSTOR for published reviews of Beal's books and peruse the many hits that you get. Please make more of an effort. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:08, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I didn't nominate the thing. Oaktree b (talk) 13:18, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  And there's no reference in the article saying he's an author, I wouldn't expect to find this. Oaktree b (talk) 13:19, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Again, see WP:BEFORE. Notability is based on what is available as sourcing, not on what is already in the article. WP:DINC. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:26, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  There is and always has been a list of his books in the article. —Noswall59 (talk) 21:51, 6 February 2024 (UTC).[reply]

• Keep re Oaktree b's comment: The thing that matters in AfD is notability, not the size of the article. If the subject passes Prof C3, then it's notable, and shouldn't be deleted. Toughpigs (talk) 06:18, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  But we need sourcing, we don't have that. Oaktree b (talk) 13:19, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  As you have already been told, the article already contains sourcing adequate for its content and adequate for our notability guidelines, and additional sourcing is plentiful beyond the article as it stands. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:27, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  And I also asked to be explained how he passes C3. I'm not in the UK so have no knowledge of how important or unimportant a thing is unless you can explain it. You've thrown a bunch of stuff at the proverbial wall, without really explaining any of it for the lay person. Likely passes the AUTHOR notability, but the lack of civility is concerning; we're aren't here to attack ppl. Simply answer what's been asked and let's move on. I have no interest otherwise. Oaktree b (talk) 21:32, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  And I already explained how you could find out the answer to your question: click on the FBA link and find out what the BA is for yourself. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:43, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I did, and it didn't make much sense to me, we don't have an honours system here. Not sure what we've accomplished at this point. Oaktree b (talk) 00:42, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Your user page suggests that "here" = Canada. Canada certainly does have honorary membership in academic societies: Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada for a start. As in the UK, they are sometimes written in initials immediately after the name: see List of post-nominal letters (Canada)#Academic orders, societies, academians. The important thing is the selectivity of the level of membership in a society, not so much the way it is written. People with an FRSC, at least, would also pass #C3, because the RSC reserves that honor only for top Canadian academics. Other societies from that list might also pass on a case-by-case basis. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:02, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Oaktree b:

  1. WP:PROF#C3 says, "The person has been ... a Fellow of a major scholarly society for which that is a highly selective honor."

  2. Beal is a Fellow of the British Academy, which is a major scholarly society for which that is a highly selective honor.

  3. Therefore, Beal — a Fellow of the British Academy — satisfies C3.

  I believe that this answers your question. Toughpigs (talk) 21:46, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Meets WP:NPROF and WP:ANYBIO as an FBA. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:16, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The page needs a bit of fleshing out but clearly passes WP:PROF#C3 as per David Eppstein and Toughpigs. Qflib (talk) 16:45, 7 February 2024 (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.