Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert C. Beck

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 userfy to Oldspammer's userspace. Observing the current consensus, it is most likely that the community will decide to delete. However, reliable sources may be found, but not with the given five days of an AfD discussion. At the bottom of the discussion, the nominator suggested a userfication, in which three users agreed. Sr13 08:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Robert C. Beck

Robert C. Beck (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Fails WP:BIO and WP:PROF notability guidelines. Lacks independent, reliable secondary sources documenting notability. Article is poorly sourced (mostly to Google Video), speculative original research and opinion - this could be fixed if independent reliable sources exist, but given their lack, the article should be deleted as one can't build a neutral encyclopedic article without such sources. MastCell Talk 17:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep and clean up.--Edtropolis 17:36, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Using what sources? MastCell Talk 17:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  • How much time is available for curing the deficiencies? Are you giving a day's notice? A week's? Two weeks'? Hertz1888 18:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
    • The AfD will close in 5 days. If the article is deleted, and subsequently reliable sources turn up, it can be recreated using those sources (in other words, deletion is not necessarily permanent). But there has to be some indication of notability, via independent, reliable secondary sources. MastCell Talk 18:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Long set of comments by Oldspammer

The article's subject person is famous among alternative medicine circles. Many Internet sources cite the work of this Dr. Robert (Bob) C. Beck person as having gathered together the research efforts of other valid scientific medical researchers, and publicized non-patented versions of working medical treatment devices. "The Beck Protocol" is a topic of substantial interest to AIDS patients (among others). A Google search of combinations of the words of "Robert C. Beck" OR "The Beck Protocol" OR "Dr. Bob Beck" OR "Bob Beck D.Sc." OR "blood electrification" will turn up tens of thousands of hits.

The link for WP:BIO says that it is not strictly WP policy.

Many persons already treated by main stream medicine may have had it fail them. To me, in my researching alternatives to main stream medicine, several individuals strike me as fact-based, and seekers of true science, rather than suppressors thereof.

That the article initially used links via Google is no reason to have it deleted. Unless you are from another planet, you would realize that web links go stale in a relatively short period of time. By linking articles via Google search for keywords, the web articles or quotations thereof can be easily be located, sometimes along with any disputed information.

Videos of the man telling his story are good enough to substantiate claims that he was a researcher, that he quoted scientific literature, and experimental results of others. The videos show that he preferred alternative medicine and was a vocal spokesperson for it. That many persons searching for AIDS treatments view the same Google videos and lead them to this man's "The Beck Protocol" publication, and devices following his designs.

No amount of references would qualify to satisfy someone who wants the information suppressed.

The quality of references given would always never be good enough for someone who wants the information suppressed.

Many people who want to suppress such information are serving what purposes?--You would certainly not be serving my purposes of investigating alternative medicine treatments if you successfully had this article deleted!

If you feel that you could better format and research this person, then feel free to do so without completely destroying the article.

Did you try to improve the article at all?

Did you try to find references suitable to your standards in order to keep the article and information within WP?

If not, then why not? And why elect to have the article deleted?

Excuse me please. I am old. My CRT screen is set for low resolution so that I can see the bigger print. If you guys indent the content too much, the text re-flow on my browser will make the text less and less readable by ultimately putting only a couple of words per line, so please don't indent too many levels. Thanks. Oldspammer 01:39, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

  • If I ignore the personal attacks, assumptions of bad faith, and WP:ILIKEIT arguments in your above post, it seems your argument is that WP:BIO should be ignored in this particular case, that Google videos distributed by the subject of the article are reliable sources which establish notability, and that it's my responsibility to adequately source the article. I disagree on all three counts. MastCell Talk 20:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
How did you establish that he himself ("by the subject") distributed the given video(s)? The video shows the subject person, himself, but the video was submitted to "Google videos" by a third party, possibly years after Robert C. Beck died. Certainly Beck died prior to Google Videos being established. One of the videos is of a Granada Forum lecture that he gave to a school sized auditorium of people, and a second video is from a different lecture given at a College lecture hall. Oldspammer 07:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Return to normal one-comment-per-bullet discussion

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- David Eppstein 20:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  • There's no attempt at "suppressing" information here. If there are sources available regarding Dr. Beck that meet the reliable sources guidelines and can verify the article's content, then please bring them forward. Google videos of a person speaking specifically about his own activities aren't reliable sources under the guidelines here, that I'm aware of; we need independent, non-trivial secondary sources. If you can find them, then please present them, and other editors will be happy to evaluate the article based on those sources. As it is, I'm maintaining a neutral stance at present - I suspect there's enough available that isn't sourced through Google Video to produce an article, but haven't the time right now to hunt for them myself. Those editors who would like the article kept should provide the necessary sources within the AFD period; at that time, I'd be happy to re-evaluate my opinion. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 20:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
"The Beck Protocol" is a document. It has been amended slightly (to include mention of Bob Beck's death) by those selling it. However, a reference was made to a copy circulating the Internet on a particular peer-to-peer network of a pdf file of about 10.4 Mbytes. The name of the peer-to-peer network was ed2k. A name of a p2p networking client of eMule was given (possibly via Google Search-link).
Two means of viewing "The Beck Protocol" are at your disposal: (a) You could purchase a nice, bound color copy from some Internet site "alternative medicine store," or (b) Download a freely available grayscale pdf file via p2p networking. Some Internet sites have excerpts from the full document as pages on their sites. The schematic to one device was linked in the article. Oldspammer 01:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Without proper sources this is not worth keeping. --John 20:36, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Aside from what was already mentioned, article seems to advocate his position as well as attempting to give a biography. Not suitable. Nyttend 20:38, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
I do not out right dismiss claims of people without investigating a bit. A "person's position" sounds like he was a political person. Political people adopt positions not necessarily based on reason or on facts presented. This person's approach seems to have been methodical and based on testing theories. Mention in the article was made that he investigated a list of other machines and found they did not satisfactorily work when he tried them. Oldspammer 02:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. I am not interested in "suppressing" this information but I do want to read an article that has reliable sources, a neutral point of view and is not self-promotion. Quality over volume is also important. If he is recognized for his contributions to research, make those the focuse of the rewritten article. Finding mainstream or near-mainstream sources is more difficult for alternative subjects, but it is not impossible. Canuckle 22:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, no reliable sources presented so far. Redecke 23:18, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete due to lack of notability and reliable sources. -Chunky Rice 23:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete because there apparently are no accessible sources. The person's own works, even if accessible, are not enough to demonstrate notability in this field unless there is evidence that it has been noticed & written about by other people in RSs. I am personally willing to interpret RSs rather flexibly for alternative medicine practitioners, but there needs to be something solid; if he has done extensive work and is considered important, people will have said so. If you can find anything, the article can be kept, but the long description of his methods needs to be shortened, as well as the part of the article which provides a show of links--but to other people's methods. DGG 00:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete due to lack of reliable sources and promotional format. -- Fyslee/talk 08:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Almost all of the references that I have in the article are still Google Search links. If you have a firewall that blocks access to Google, then your accessibility would be blocked.
If I was to select individual Google search result links as sources for the information, would that be suitable as providing sources for my references?
How could I determine if these sources would meet with the satisfaction of the most critical people on wikipedia? Oldspammer 02:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Second set of comments by Oldspammer

The link for WP:BIO says that it is not strictly WP policy.

  1. "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field." "The Beck Protocol" is famous in the alternative medicine field.
  2. "Commercial endorsements of demonstrably notable products" As notice of his "The Beck Protocol" spreads, more and more of the interested public want to know what products he endorsed that qualify for use in his Protocol. Referenced pages indicate that Sota instruments of B.C. Canada produced a line of treatment devices that he endorsed. Unless you were ill with an incurable disease, you would probably not have known this, or tried to determine this information.
  3. "Creative professionals: scientists, academics, economists, professors, authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, engineers, and other creative professionals." Robert C. Beck lectured about, and handed out literature that he wrote about Blood electrification treatments and associated information. This is contained in "The Beck Protocol" document that is about 90 pages long.
  4. "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." Whereas other scientists patented work related to their findings on blood electrification, Dr. Bob Beck openly published his findings, schematics, and protocols to enable members of the interested public to examine the merits of the treatment methods. This represents a greater contribution in my mind than a scientist who patents a well kept secret idea that will rarely see the light of day in every day life.
  5. "The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries, museums or internationally significant libraries." In the conventional medical field, he is probably hated. But to members of the public having many forms of incurable diseases, his work should become more well known and possibly beneficial to the masses. Oldspammer 02:12, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

It should be clear to anyone that some source who is reliable to one group of people is quite the opposite to another.

For example, Quackwatch is an internet site that quotes cancer journal articles where "an expert" studies descriptions of a concept, but does not do a scientific experiment to prove or disprove the concept involved, nor do the article authors cite any scientifically proven principles to indicate why their conclusions were accurate. Some wiki articles have cited Quackwatch as a source. I think that Quackwatch has some reliable information, but it also has its fill of unreliable information as well. It is usually up to the judgement of the reader as to how to believe one way or the other. Oldspammer 02:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Second return to bulleted comments

  • Delete. There appear to be no reliable sources that cover this person's life and work. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. No Reliable sources presented. --Fredrick day 08:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete Utter rubbish and pseudoscientific nonsense. This is for the National Enquirer, not an encyclopedia. Does not meet any measure of mainstream notability; he might as well have taught at Hogwarts.--RandomHumanoid(⇒) 03:01, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment You are absolutely correct that it is "utter rubbish and pseudoscientific nonsense." In fact it is dangerous nonsense that can cost lives, but we have articles on equally nonsensical subjects like homeopathy here, and the promotion of homeopathy also costs lives. That is not a Wikipedia-legitimate reason to keep information out of Wikipedia. His lack of notability is a good reason. If the article gets saved, then it can also be a place to provide the documentation against this nonsense, in keeping with NPOV. -- Fyslee/talk 07:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Don't delete yet

I'm planning to re-write the article so please don't delete it quite yet. I'll see if I can bring it up to the level.Wikidudeman (talk) 08:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Tell me if it meets the quality qualifications yet.Wikidudeman (talk) 15:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

No, it does not, ref 9 & 11 are searches--you need to reference the individual relevant documents found in the search. Ref 6 is a copy of WP and is useless for any purpose. Refs 1-5, 7, 8, 10, 12, &15 are not acceptable to establish notability as they are not 3rd party sources, though some might be usable for biographic details. . Refs 13 14 & 16 are general refs. about this type of therapy and are acceptable sources for discussing that, but do not establish his individual notability. DGG 18:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Since both User:Wikidudeman and User:Oldspammer have expressed an interest on further improving this article, I'd propose that if the consensus is to delete, that we userfy the page and move it to Oldspammer's userspace. Then, Wikidudeman and Oldspammer can continue to work on it without a deadline. If at some point it rises to meet the bars of WP:BIO and/or WP:PROF, then the revised article could be taken to deletion review. Thoughts? MastCell Talk 19:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
That sounds very reasonable. -- Fyslee/talk 19:26, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Good idea. It looks like the sources are challenging to dig up, and may take longer than the AFD period. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 20:12, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Agreed.DGG 00:12, 20 June 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.