Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Bellinghaus (3rd 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 Keep. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 22:17, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mark Bellinghaus

Mark Bellinghaus (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

I believe the claim for notability is related to collection of Marilyn Monroe memorabilia, but it's hard to tell with all the other cruft here. Many ghits for "Mark Bellinghaus" but most are his own blogs or PR pieces. One minor role in major film. Fails WP:BIO (lacks significant awards, recognition, or press coverage). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• By reading this article, one can see that there are numerous sources which reference back to the subject's contributions in uncovering Marilyn Monroe Memorabilia Fraud. Such notables as Michael Shermer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Shermer) included articles about Bellinghaus' research in his online magazine and website. This topic and subject was covered by major news agencies. Two out of 29 sources referenced in this article are Bellinghaus', that is not considered "most".

Is there way to request that an article deletion request be reverted? If so I'd like to do so. --Papillonbleu (talk) 17:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The nearest thing you can get to this is 'speedy close as keep', but that is unlikely to happen here, so no, not really. — BillC ^talk 17:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Weak delete. It's difficult to plough through this article, filled throughout with lavish praise, to get to the subject matter. There doesn't seem to be too strong a claim of genuine notability, but I am willing to be convinced otherwise. — BillC ^talk 17:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

(I'm replying under my own comment, since the formatting below is a little mixed up at present. Anyone feel free to move this should this be sorted out.) Being referenced by other Wikipedia article(s) confers no degree of notability, particularly when contributors to one article can easily create backward links in another. Notability thresholds are met due to multiple external independent sources. It gets closer however, with the Shermer reference; however, Shermer didn't so much write about Bellinghaus, he introduced him and published an article by him. (FWIW, I'm an eSkeptic subscriber myself and received the article in question.) — BillC ^talk 19:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Bill C, this is what I've been trying to note to User:Delicious carbuncle in our discussions below. I believe this subject fills the basic criteria for WP:Notability for People with independent sources for both film and television appearances and investigative work into Monroe. This includes secondary source material that is reliable, intellectually independent and independent of the subject. That includes the Shermer reference, as well as coverage from sources noted in Eric Berlin article and other articles. --Papillonbleu (talk) 04:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Sorry for using jargon - "ghits' is short for "Google hits". I wasn't referring to the refs in the article itself, although spotchecking those, I see that several of them don't mention Bellinghaus at all. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Note that this is actually the third nomination, not the second (I used Twinkle to submit). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Please see source articles on subject's involvement in anti-Fraud with Monroe, which are comprised of 29 valid sources including the BBC, AP, etc. Subject has received global press coverage with his achievements and discoveries as indicated by the resource links. As mentioned, notable Michael Shermer has written about him. Subject is also linked on Marilyn Monroe Wikipedia Article. And has been for extensive time:

Extracted from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marilyn_Monroe See also

   * Death of Marilyn Monroe
   * Marilyn Monroe in popular culture
   * Berniece Baker Miracle, her half-sister
   * Look alike contest Monroe's popularity as a costume
   * Mark Bellinghaus Monroe memorabilia collector and activist

Subject was linked on Marilyn Monroe's Wikipedia Article for the importance of the work done in her memory, which he is known for. This is another indicator of notability.

--Papillonbleu (talk) 18:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Nominations for deletions on this article appear to be vandals as indicated by this talk page below. Deletion nominations for this article have been flagged by editors, such as below:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hilljayne Mark Bellinghaus

Can you please provide a url from which this is a copyright infringement, I have removed your speedy tag until this is done, as I am unsure as to the validity of your speedy tag. Regards, SGGH speak! 14:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Your post[1] is a violation of WP:BLP. Do not leave such derogatory comments. Additionally, the article is not a copyright infringement. It has been edited thoroughly and been through an AfD. Tyrenius (talk) 14:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Delicious carbuncle appears to not be using these labels with care, as based on other examples on user's Wiki Talk Page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Delicious_carbuncle --Papillonbleu (talk) 18:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I'm honestly not sure what you're referring to on my talk page, but this isn't the forum to discuss my actions. I am not User:Hilljayne, nor is that user the nominator of either of the first two AfDs, so I really can't see the relevance, or the justification for accusing anyone of being a vandal. Note that notability is not portable -- Michael Shermer is not the topic of this article -- and that links from other articles do not connote notability. Please review AfD discussion guidelines. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I did not accuse you of being a vandal but noted that there were questions on your Talk Page about other cases you were involved with and that the Bellinghaus article was submitted for deletion by another user and was flagged per the attached

our post[1] is a violation of WP:BLP. Do not leave such derogatory comments. Additionally, the article is not a copyright infringement. It has been edited thoroughly and been through an AfD. Tyrenius (talk) 14:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

On the topic of Shermer, he is a notable subject on Wiki who has written about the Bellinghaus findings. Bellinghaus is also referenced on the Marilyn Monroe Wiki article. Plus written about by major news agencies many times. This should show subject's notability.

--Papillonbleu (talk) 19:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I highly protest the deletion process since it has become a farce like procedure. If you are looking in the history tabs of the Mark Bellinghaus article you can see that there were some individuals who obviously were trying to hide, what Bellinghaus and some others have discovered. I also highly protest to claim that Michael Shermer's supporting reprint is 'irrelevant' since he has established himself for many years now as an important voice for the people who are taken by 'believeres' in anything. The debunking of James van Praagh alone should grant the Mark Bellinghaus site justice. I did not see the Michael Shermer link in the past history so I added it myself. It has been proven many times now, that some other individuals have been vandalizing this page in particular, people who came on just for the purpose to cause damage, and in some cases they also claimed things about Mark Bellinghaus which were harmful to his persona. It is quite obvious to anyone who is looking into the details of this matter, that he has been fighting people who do want to harm him and discredit him for everything he achieved. Again, I find it extremely important to warn the public about frauds, any frauds.

Weareallone (talk) 20:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Again, notability is not portable - Mark Bellinghaus is not Michael Shermer and must be judged on his own merits. A history of vandalism to the article does not confer either notability or verification of any claims. Weareallone, as the most recent major contributor to this article, what is your understanding of how Bellinghaus is notable? Can we at least agree that his film work does not meet WP:Notability and therefore ignore 1/3 of the article's references? Out of the rest, some are links to PR sites or Bellinghaus' own blogs, and about half of what's left don't even mention Bellinghaus. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:49, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Going back to the first nomination, I said If there were a slight chance of a keep, in my book, the WP:COI strikes it. There are extremely marginal claims to notability as a collector, but the article has consistently been used in a POV and promotional way. There's simply no way that the non-memorabilia portion of his life/career are worth an in-depth examination. --Dhartung | Talk 22:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Where would you question his notability with his television and movie career? Plentiful references in this article document that. Shermer's support of Bellinghaus should be considered plus Bellinghaus stands on his own within the reference links, which are quality links that reflect international news coverage about Bellinghaus. --Papillonbleu (talk) 22:31, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I feel like you are missing the point here. I have not noticed any attempts of Mark Bellinghaus to copy Michael Shermer in any ways. To my knowledge Mr. Shermer came to Mark Bellinghaus' first blog exposure of a huge fraud which also included the self proclaimed psychic James van Praagh. And I guess it is known what Mr. Shermer thinks about van Praagh. However, I looked into the history of the Mark Bellinghaus page and realized that a lot of vandalism happened in the past. People who edited there left lies and accusations about Mr. Bellinghaus and obviously tried to achieve in getting their own Wikipedia page.

I also do not agree that any acting work from Mr. Bellinghaus should be belittled, since he appeared not only in an international film, but is also named as starring actor in a TV series in Germany. And I guess in the United States anybody can claim to be an actor/actress, even if they cannot prove it with any work they have done in that profession. Again, it is obvious that some people would follow Bellinghaus everywhere he is going. Mr. Bellinghaus has been the victim of identity theft numerous times as well. The links are important to get the whole picture of a person who is obviously using his whole talents in order to warn the public about a group of people who are out to harm the general public by supporting fraudulent exhibitions, memorabilia and characters who claim to be what they are not. The debunking of a woman who named herself June DiMaggio is extremely important for Marilyn Monroe history, since this woman claimed that Monroe was murdered and that she was a friend of Monroe for eleven years. If people like that would get away with their claims, I hope you agree Delicious carbuncle, we all had a hard time to look into the life and history of any person of interest. Before I added the important and supporting links the Mark Bellinghaus article contained one quote and I added two very interesting (in my own opinion) quotes. I will now remove one and I hope that we can agree on an acceptable outcome. I did research before I edited anything at all and I have not found proof for a bigger exhibition scandal or hoax. You mayb be familiar with another fraud which was happening in Great Britain, but it was a museums display and the fraud was a fake skull which was claimed to by many thousands of years old. Again, we must be aware that since the crimes are still so fresh in the Marilyn Monroe exhibition frauds, that supporters of these crimes are trying to silent Mr. Bellinghaus or to belittle his work for the public. I did not mean to turn the article into a fan site as you also complained. I am a fan of fact based investigations and the success of Mark Bellinghaus' first exposures truly speaks for itself. He found a scandal and he exposed it and everything attached to this scandal would create a brighter, a bigger firework, since he discovered more and more crimes. I could go on and on about this as you see, but I really do feel that it should be important and absolutely supported if one is succeeding in making a difference in our society, that we should support him and not attack and erase him/her. The founder of this very wonderful website just was all over the news because of a personal, a private matter. Are you judging all of us editors now, just because the founder of Wikipedia has his personal belongings sold off on eBay by his former partner? Please think about this as well.

I will take out one quote from the article, and I contacted some other editors to look into this matter. The more neutral editors, the better. I also do not agree on deleting reference links. The more information, the better.

Weareallone (talk) 22:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Above is correct if one looks at the history of the mafhoney revisions, which were undone by an editor. Also IP address in between the mafhoney user was noted for vandalism.

1. (cur) (last) 05:27, 13 February 2007 Deatonjr (Talk | contribs) (Revert to revision 106952645 dated 2007-02-09 23:09:06 by Tyrenius using popups) (undo)
2. (cur) (last) 05:25, 13 February 2007 Deatonjr (Talk | contribs) (Revert to revision 106906517 dated 2007-02-09 19:47:56 by Monroe62 using popups) (undo)
3. (cur) (last) 05:24, 13 February 2007 Deatonjr (Talk | contribs) (Revert to revision 107713708 dated 2007-02-13 01:36:42 by Mafhoney using popups) (undo)
4. (cur) (last) 02:16, 13 February 2007 Mafhoney (Talk | contribs) (→The US and Monroe) (undo)
5. (cur) (last) 01:36, 13 February 2007 Mafhoney (Talk | contribs) (→The US and Monroe) (undo)
6. (cur) (last) 01:10, 13 February 2007 Mafhoney (Talk | contribs) (→The US and Monroe) (undo)
7. (cur) (last) 01:05, 13 February 2007 63.3.66.147 (Talk) (→The US and Monroe) (undo)
8. (cur) (last) 00:58, 13 February 2007 63.3.66.147 (Talk) (→The US and Monroe) (undo)
9. (cur) (last) 19:55, 12 February 2007 Mafhoney (Talk | contribs) (→References) (undo)
10. (cur) (last) 19:53, 12 February 2007 Mafhoney (Talk | contribs) (→References) (undo)
11. (cur) (last) 19:51, 12 February 2007 Mafhoney (Talk | contribs) (→The US and Monroe) (undo)

--Papillonbleu (talk) 23:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Another notation on the subject Mark Bellinghaus: external link includes subject's website, which has over 93,000 hits and should also be an indicator of subject's notability in field of work and expertise.

--Papillonbleu (talk) 01:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment I am reluctant to add another word to this discussion, but since comments were addressed to me personally, I will respond briefly. Bellinghaus' acting work clearly fails WP:Notability. I do not doubt his credits, but they are limited, he has won no awards, and has no significant media covergae as an actor. Bellinghaus' website hits are not relevant to this discussion since the article is not about his website. I have no idea why you are bringing up Mafhoney, since they have not been involved in this discussion. Bellinghaus' real or imagined enemies have no bearing on the notability of this article. I note, however, that User:Papillonbleu and User:Weareallone share the same interests, editing styles, and style of argument. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

He seems to qualify on WP:Notability under Basic Criteria for people: Basic criteria

A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published[2] secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent,[3] and independent of the subject.[4]

   * If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability.[5]
   * Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject.

Shermer article should qualify as secondary source material that is reliable, intellectually independent and independent of the subject. There are other links which could qualify as secondary and are referenced in Bellinghaus article.

And in regard to your closing argument, one could also state that User:Papillonbleu and User:Delicious carbuncle share the same interests since you revised my contributions to the Lee Strasberg and Mark Bellinghaus articles. --Papillonbleu (talk) 04:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Delicious carbuncle, can you be more specific here please? Are you suggesting that Wikipedia editor Papillonbleu and I are the same person, just because we has added important links to an extremely important page? If I go into your own history I can also see some similar wordings and phrases which are used in two differnt users pages. But that is arguable as the reasons you have brought forward against the relevance of acting work. So you do not agree that Bellinghaus is a photographer, yet he literally furnished all of his exposures with his own photographs, and I also found some press releases on the Internet which show his in my opinion talent as a photographer. I saw his posting on his discussion site, where he threw in the facts that now are added to the Mark Bellinghaus page, which spill out another mean fraud and exhibition hoax. I added the Michael Shermer praise for Bellinghaus myself and I am standing behind this, since it is of great relevance, since psychics tried to confuse the public's opinion about some fake Marilyn Monroe belongings. Van Praagh supported a scam and both parties were exposed. And I would like to bring back the attention back to the second submission for deletion. It was obviously done by a person who had a personal agenda and used Wikipedia in a retaliation attack. Weareallone (talk) 04:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

More discoveries about Bellinghaus' acting credentials that I found online. Please see this link: http://lexikon.power-oldie.com/Mark_Bellinghaus - if translated it shows that he acted in Fremde Liebe Fremde, which was an award winning show, winning several Grimme Preis, which means Grimme Prize. He played the brother of lead actress Meret Becker, one of Germany's leading actresses who also played a part in Steven Speilberg's "Munich". He also co-starred with Camilla Horn.--Papillonbleu (talk) 05:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment The so-called Shermer article is merely a short introduction (which appears to be a mostly a cut and paste from Bellinghaus' own site if you look at the wording) and a partial reposting of one of Bellinghaus' blog posts. So far as I know, Shermer has not written anything else about Bellinghaus. Can we let that one go now?
• Reply to Carbuncle No --Papillonbleu (talk) 02:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
• The awards mentioned above by Papillonbleu are for the show, not Bellinghaus. Meret Becker is one of Germany's leading actresses, not Bellinghaus. Bellinghaus did not have a part in Steven Speilberg's "Munich". Camilla Horn is not Bellinghaus. Incidentally, the page you offer is a copy of the German WP page for Bellinghaus.
• I have acted on my suspicions and opened a sockpuppetry case here. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Reply to Carbuncle User:Delicious carbuncle, never answered my statement why they followed me onto two Wiki articles, including this one, and instead filed a bogus report against me saying I'm a Sock Puppet. Just because I don't agree with this person and their opinions? As I wrote - "And in regard to your closing argument, one could also state that User:Papillonbleu and User:Delicious carbuncle share the same interests since you revised my contributions to the Lee Strasberg and Mark Bellinghaus articles. --Papillonbleu (talk) 04:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)" - User:Delicious carbuncle instead appears overzealous to discredit anyone who positively affirms this article. Carbuncle's suspicions are way off as evidence on the replies of the victims of carbuncle's accusations: here--Papillonbleu (talk) 02:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment An AfD involves voting, which is why the sockpuppetry case is relevant here (and the sole reason I started it). This is not the place to debate it. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 05:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep All of this other diversionary rhetoric aside, searching Google, omitting phrases such as "by Mark Bellinghaus", Wikipedia, YouTube, and other such terms, there are sufficient substantial hits to convince me that, if nothing other than as the owner of this collection, Bellinghaus is notable, much more than some of the biographies that exist on Wikipedia. This isn't to say the article doesn't need massive work, or that it isn't full of POV and extraneous material. But he's notable, self-made or not, which is the only criteria. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep There are more media mentions than at the last AfD, including UK national press. There seems to have been some COI editing, which needs to be cleaned up, but that's not a reason to delete. Ty 03:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Looking at the current references, there are four UK press links: Times Online, Argus, BBC, and Sunday Express. Note that only the Sunday Express tabloid mentions Bellinghaus - the others do not. The rest of the references are as spotty. And in the external links to YouTube videos, the BCC radio clip identifies Bellinghuas as "Managing Director of Marilyn Monroe Productions" (not an expert); the French tv clip calls him "a passionate collector" (again, not an expert). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• Whether he is an expert or not is a matter which should be discussed on the article talk page, though I note that UK national paper Daily Express calls him a "world-renowned Monroe expert" and the story is specifically about his claims.[1] This debate is whether he has sufficient coverage from secondary sources to keep an article on him. As you have pointed out, there are multiple international sources that include him. That meets requirements of WP:BIO. There is also a dedicated feature on him in LA Weekly.[2] Detailed discussion on the relevance or otherwise of other references is again a matter to raise on the article talk page. Ty 00:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• The LA Weekly feature is not, as you state, dedicated, it covers several Monroe collectors. I'm assuming that self-proclaimed "expert in Marilyn Monroe" is his claim to notability, so this is exactly the place to discuss it. Otherwise, why is he notable? Granted, he seems to be a relentless self-promoter, not even having let this AfD slow down his additions to WP (see Debunker for example). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• I stand corrected. LA Weekly is not only about him, but it provides substantial non-trivial coverage of him. Notability does not necessitate proving that a person is notable for any one thing in particular, but simply that there is a sufficient amount of coverage in secondary sources of that person, which could relate, in fact, to various activities. It is agreed that he has received international coverage. Ty 02:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep The article needs a good clean up which I will do if no-one else will, but this subject is no less notable now than at the last AfD. More, if anything. If there are specific concerns, they should be raised in the article talk. --John (talk) 06:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I've cleaned up the worst of the peacock terms, repetition and overstatement in the article. I hope you will agree it looks much better. --John (talk) 18:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep for the same reasons as John above. Bondegezou (talk) 16:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
• Notice Please keep the discussion focused on the merits of this article - this is not the place for bringing up various off-wiki conflicts. I've removed attacks on another editor which had nothing to do with the discussion, please do not reinsert them. henrik•talk 21:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep It neads a bit of a tidy, but it seems to be notable! I do not however approve of what he has done!Flutterdance (talk) 14:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
• — Flutterdance (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Ty 14:24, 14 March 2008 (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.