Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Bellinghaus

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 Relist. Guinnog's rewrite and others' further cleanup have changed the article substantially enough so that many of the below comments may not be relevant. The new location is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Bellinghaus (second nomination). AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mark Bellinghaus

Mark Bellinghaus (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Mark Bellinghaus (artist) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Adding duplicate article Mark Bellinghaus (artist) to this AfD. Tubezone 11:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion The main claim to encyclopedic notability as "the world's leading expert and authority" on Marilyn Monroe fails WP:V. Linked to source[1] for this claim is a website which allows anyone to submit and publish press releases/opinion pieces without any apparent quality control whatsoever[2] [3]. (yes there are google news hits for this "news" service, but that shows google is setting the bar waaaay too low. There are couple of releases from PR-Inside available on googl news about Mark Bellinghaus which are apparently written by a rival (or partner?) Marilyn memorabilia collector[4][5])

I checked this guy's name against Factiva news database. 4 hits (3 unique) in the archive. All 3 unique hits are from Los Angeles Times, in which he is mentioned as a Marilyn Monroe enthusiast and one of the major Marilyn Monroe memorabilia collectors in the Los Angeles area, but none of the articles are primarily about him (all mention him in passing or as secondary quote) and none cite him as a world expert or even the leading LA collector[6] The most recent article is about Marilyn Monroe memorabilia fraud - but is mainly about another collector whose collection is suspected of being dubious - Bellinghaus and his rival/partner Cunningham (the other guy writing the PR-Inside "articles) are mentioned in passing with a quote towards the end as people who have suspicions. They get maybe 60 words out of a 1300 word article.

As for the rest of the article... well I'm kind of overwhelmed. Let's deal with the IMDB TV/film acting credits listing as surely that will come up:[7]. Well, the Name of the Rose movie part is definitely a bit part[8]. The other parts appear to be bit parts or one or two minor roles in German TV series. He seems to have had a lead role in a made-for-TV Swiss movie called Flaming Armadillo[[9].... The claimed stage career isn't verified (seems like a lot of these "reference" links in the article just go to other wikipedia articles or to german webpages that prove a location (a theatre or whatever) exists but doesn't verify anything else). Given the inflation of his Marilyn hobby, and the inflation of his bit part in Name of the Rose, I'm concerned that there is pattern of inflations through the article....

Urrgghh!!! I flail my arms around wildly. Massive suspected WP:COI abuse of wikipedia in one article. If there is really an article about a verifiable, possibly encyclopedically notable acting career here - I recommend that this article be scrapped and the author creates a much more modest article with proper referencing in his userspace and then resubmit it for community review. This article is just not acceptable in its current state.

Bwithh 05:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete Aaagh, the vanity! It burns! RedRollerskate 05:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Note per AfD Wikiquette — The accusation VANITY should be avoided [10], and is not in itself a reason for deletion. Tyrenius 06:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment OK, I'm sorry. But it's still non-notable and more a MySpace page (as someone else noted) than a Wikipedia article. RedRollerskate 21:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per thorough nomination. Reads like WP:COI, no WP:RS. Note: the article Mark Bellinghaus (artist) is pretty much the same article, and needs to go as well. --Kinu t/c 06:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment: despite the attempt at cleanup (thanks Guinnog), the subject still appears to have nothing but marginal notability based on WP:RS per WP:BIO, and nothing to indicate a change in my recommendation. --Kinu t/c 19:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. A hint of WP:AUTO as well, perhaps? --Guinnog 06:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep but rewrite according to guidelines. WP:AUTO is not automatic grounds for deletion, and I think the subject is marginally notable. I volunteer to do the rewrite. Alternatively, a lot of it could probably be userfied. I agree that the article as it stands is unacceptable. --Guinnog 07:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Somewhere in this pile of vanity and trivia there might be the shell of a salvageable article, but I can't find it. Fan-1967 07:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, fails WP:BIO. Potentially Userfy, but Mmmovie (talk · contribs), the primary author, already has a draft copy in his space, and seems to primarily edit Marilyn Monroe and associated articles. If there were a slight chance of a keep, in my book, the WP:COI strikes it. --Dhartung | Talk 08:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Mr. Bellinghaus has apparently written the overtly biased article himself [11]. --Downtownstar 09:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:NOT MySpace. The story about the Marilyn Monroe fraud can be merged to the MM page. Tubezone 11:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete this shrine to Mr. Bellinghaus. Montco 12:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete the ego. 172.188.122.189 13:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Only edit by this user —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tyrenius (talk • contribs) 16:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC).
  • Delete per above. MER-C 13:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Mark Bellinghaus' wikipedia article: You will never find a more wretched hive of WP:AUTO and WP:COI. We must be cautious. --Brian(view my history)/(How am I doing?) 19:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, and keep an eye out for re-creation. Robertissimo 04:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, nonnotable/vanity. —tregoweth (talk) 03:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per Guinnog's offer above to rewrite the article to acceptable standards (made since the above delete votes!). Delete arguments above citing Auto, Ego, Vanity etc are not valid reasons for deleting in themselves anyway, but reasons for cleanup. Cumulatively the activities of the subject, both in acting and the Monroe activism (which gets a good plug in LA Times) scrape him through. It will make an interesting (and much shorter) article. Tyrenius 08:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't describe the LA Times mention as a "good plug" for him. His acting career still needs to be properly sourced and shown to be encyclopedically notable. There's hasn't been a rewrite yet by Guinnog, but I look forward to it. Bwithh 08:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
No, Even if there was a re-write, there needs to be multiple, reputable, reliable, notable, independent (from the subject), third-party, published sources giving him non-trivial coverage. There isn't any that I can find using Google, or even the ODIN public library search software for the tri-state area (north dakota, south dakota, minnesota). He isn't mentioned in a published book, I haven't found coverage from multiple sources on his MM work. No, 'Cumulative' does not equal notability. Bit parts in movies does not equal notability, and there are no sources to back up the claims made (as pointed out in the original post) of the acting. Monroe activism? Let me say this from the original post:

The main claim to encyclopedic notability as "the world's leading expert and authority" on Marilyn Monroefails WP:V.

There are nothing in the news, in print, or on the web to back up this claim.

I checked this guy's name against Factiva news database. 4 hits (3 unique) in the archive. All 3 unique hits are from Los Angeles Times, in which he is mentioned as a Marilyn Monroe enthusiast and one of the major Marilyn Monroe memorabilia collectors in the Los Angeles area, but none of the articles are primarily about him (all mention him in passing or as secondary quote) and none cite him as a world expert or even the leading LA collector

What this means is ONE notable new sources has mentioned him in an article. HOWEVER, per wikipedia policies, the articles must be primarily about him...they are not. None of them say he is a world expert...or even having the largest or most notable collection.

The most recent article is about Marilyn Monroe memorabilia fraud - but is mainly about another collector whose collection is suspected of being dubious - Bellinghaus and his rival/partner Cunningham (the other guy writing the PR-Inside "articles) are mentioned in passing with a quote towards the end as people who have suspicions. They get maybe 60 words out of a 1300 word article.

That is a mention in passing...a trivial mention per wikipedia policy. A person can have 100 mentions in passing in articles and would not be concidered to pass wikipedia policy. So no...'Cumulative' coverage does not work. None of his acting career is sourced properly, and nothing about his MM activism makes him notable. I still stand by my delete opinion... and actually am changing that to STRONG delete since now that I think about it, the article is a puff piece more suited to Myspace...were you can claim anything without providing proof --Brian(view my history)/(How am I doing?) 18:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete, without prejudice to Guinnog's ability to write a better one. This would be a bad Myspace page. There is so much there that it is barely possible that Guinnog can eke out a bit, but I'd have to see it. Most of it is intense puffery of a minor actor and obsessed fan, which is all well and good (probably half of us editors are obsessed fans), but no different from thousands of others. AnonEMouse (squeak) 19:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Open letter to "Bschott" & "AnonEMouse": Dear Brian, (I forwarded this email also to AnonEMouse who is not discribing him/herself as a "director on youtube" in his/her profile).

I just read your comments regarding your opinion towards the deletion of my Wikipedia page.

Let me just do a little explanation here, if you have a minute. Last year, I bought original hair curlers at an auction--they originated from "the estate of Marilyn Monroe," and five months later, there comes this "exhibit" into town and shows fake ones. But not only that, they show 95% fake items.

What would you have done? You tell me that none of my action has made me a "noteable Monroe enthusiat?" You discribe yourself as a "director on youtube" and try to make me look as I was a crackpot that has never worked in the business, when I worked in 26 productions, such as movies, tv and theater. Oh I know that is not important, cause it is not youtube. I would really suggest to you to rent a movie, it is called SCHTONK, and it was nominated for BEST FOREIGN ACADEMY AWARD, and it was made in Germany. It is telling a story, which you might recognize, when you read what I have discovered.

I can guarantee, that there will be a movie, which is portraying all the fraud and the ongoing that I found and brought to light. Even Hugh Hefner, the guy who is some day resting next to Marilyn Monroe was supporting this BS fraud on Marilyn Monroe.

One last thing, this is not about me, but I have to state who I am and if you check: I do not have a Myspace page and I don't think that I really want one. But I have tell who I am and what I am, otherwise I would not have been so successful in stopping that fraudulent exhibition, which could have also traveled to your home town and taken money from your family and friends (in case they like Marilyn Monroe).

I have proof for all the work I have done, I am not making anything up. You might be just too young to understand that, but I have stood up against something really ugly. And I am still shocked, that I succeeded. I closed a fake show that could have made $100 million. That is a fact. And I have worked on and for this for thirteen months. And you want to seriously tell me that this is worth nothing? Do you want me to forward you all the emails that I got from all over the world, from supporters and fans of MM?! You got a lot of awards on your site. They must be standing for something as well.

Please think about all of that I just said. The story is not going away, and I am not going away either. I have defended Marilyn Monroe, against sick people and sicker fraud. You'll be the judge.

Best,

Mark Bellinghaus 76.168.210.190 19:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Mark, I'm not saying that you were wrong or your cause wasn't just. I'm not saying your life has no meaning or that anyone could get a bit part in a movie, but the facts I am stating is that per wikipedia policy WP:V (all about verifible sources and information) and in relation to that WP:RS (all about what wikipeida conciders reliable and non-reliable sources), and then [[WP:BIO|WP:BIO (what criterias are required or to be met by a person to merit a wikipedia page). While we are not like the Britanica or any other paper encyclopedia that has a fairly high bar for what they will have articles on, and while Wikipedia does have the ability to include many more things that a paper encyclopedia couldn't, we do still have standards which need to me met. The standards are fairly applied to everyone. Two of my favorite bands put up pages here but were removed because they didn't meet the WP:MUSIC guideline yet. I voted delete in both cases even though I love their music.

Now, I am not claiming notability nor am I claiming anything really. I don't have a page in the main wikipedia namespace, it's just a user space about the editor (me), which is really just a quick stub of who I am. A director account on youtube just means you can post videos longer than 10 minutes so it's really nothing special but I mention it so people who wanted to learn more about me could. Not everyone has an account and those that do mainly are posting videos on personal opinions and such. Nothing more, nothing less, nothing notable, nothing worth an article. Never factored into the decision/opinion I had about your article. Haveing a cause is great but the thing is the cause hasn't drawn much media attention outside of the LA paper and even there, the articles are not primarily about you. Even if this were the case, that is only one paper which does not meet WP:V. Multiple major papers or news reports would need to also be reporting stories based primarily on you. It's nothing against your cause or life, but the fact is, the average person needs be able to easily and simply find the sources to back up the claims made about your acting career. The links provided just go to the theater's webpage...great but where are the newspaper articles or tv/radio reports on those plays you were in? Someone that doesn't know you from the common man on the street needs to be able to verify your claims. That's all. I may be young (at 29) but I'm looking at your article with uncolored glasses, making an opinion based on wikipedia policy and standards. Nothing more, nothing less.--Brian(view my history)/(How am I doing?) 21:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Good for you. Please note that we are not denigrating you or your life's work, it's certainly a useful thing. It's just not necessarily notable, in the sense that many have heard of it. Notability is not the same thing as value - for example, many dictators, mass murderers, and other actively harmful persons are highly notable, while many perfectly fine people contributing to the world behind the scenes aren't.
I support giving Guinnog another 24 hours or whatever, though I'm still skeptical. Just making the images smaller helped a lot, though I have to say sentences like "Without any doubts, Bellinghaus created the most successful blog article in the history of blogging." still seem just a bit overstated. (For example the Drudge Report article that led to the impeachment of a president would probably find a number of backers.) AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. Saying "Person X doesn't deserve a Wikipedia article" does not in any way mean that Person X is a bad person who has contributed nothing to society. Lots of good people who do good things don't and shouldn't have Wikipedia articles. I'm sorry to say that due to all the graphics and the congratulatory tone, the article strongly resembles a MySpace page. This is not intended as a personal attack or an insult. After all, you're a newbie and you didn't know. (And frankly, there are a lot of Wikipedia articles that look worse, so you are far from alone.) I suggest you head over to WP:BIO to see what qualifies for inclusion here, and WP:MOS to see how articles ought to look. This'll give you an idea of why people have such strong objections to the article. RedRollerskate 20:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Update My work so far is at User:Guinnog/mb. It is far from finished. It may be that the sceptics are right and this will have to be deleted. I would only ask for another 24h or so to finish doing what I can do. Meanwhile I made the duplicate article into a redirect, which it should have been all along. --Guinnog 19:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Blatant self-promotion of a blatantly non-notable individual. "In 1988 he played Rüdiger Burkhard in the hit show Verkehrsgericht (Traffic Court), episode 21, "Unfall nach Discobesuch," ... I mean, really. If that's our standard now we have to change WP:PROF to allow grad students to list their resumes. ~ trialsanderrors 09:24, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Update with kudos to Guinnog, but Dhartung said it correctly: "If there were a slight chance of a keep, in my book, the WP:COI strikes it." In the end the last thing we want to do is encourage people with very marginal claims to notability to post their heavily embellished vitae here and expect us to clean it up for them. This is also relevant for the question whether Wikipedia can in the future operate without advertising, since for-profit vanity Who-is-who publishers are a dime a dozen, allowing such content on Wikipedia undermines the non-profit substructure of this project. ~ trialsanderrors 21:57, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Further update Well, I've done what I can with it for now. It could still do with some refinement of the prose and structure and a few more references for the second part. I think it works better now than it did, and as I said I think the subject is marginally notable. --Guinnog 10:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Final update Well, I think I've finished. I've taken out pretty much all the unreferenced and POV stuff, and cleaned up the formatting a bit. As I've said all along, I think the subject is marginally notable and the article is, I hope, now marginally interesting and readable. The acting career section would perhaps read better as a table or a list. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia; I don't want to overstate my case, but I think there are far worse articles out there. Having said that, if the consensus remains that we delete this article I won't be offended. --Guinnog 20:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Another update I've now edited Guinnog's edit and cut the article further to the essential points. The early "deletes" were based on an article which is very different to its current form, which shows sufficient acting achievement with lead parts etc to bestow minor notability, added to the Monroe incident. The article has to be judged objectively as it now is, regardless how it started out. In the circumstances, if there is still a desire to delete it, it may be best to relist and start the AfD with a clean slate. Tyrenius 22:46, 6 January 2007 (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.