Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stefan Michael Beck

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 of the debate was Delete. The Land 18:38, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stefan Michael Beck

Delete This page seems to contain a lot of false or unverifiable information and may be an extended joke or an attempt to prove Wikipedia is a bad source. Dabbler 18:02, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, hoax, just looking up the first thing I looked for shows that he was not Calamy in Master and Commander, the rest reads like nonsense. User:Zoe|^(talk) 18:13, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Keep,“Unverifiable information” should not be grounds for deletion in this instance. Despite the opinion of User: Zoe, the entry does not read as nonsense, chronologically it makes perfect sense, and much of the information couldn’t be verified unless the reader were exceptionally well versed in “electronic noise music,” or British magazine publishing. Admittedly, it does seem a bit fantastic that one individual could do so much, however, you’ve no way of being certain the article is a hoax. User:Wizard of Gore18:53, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

If you can prove that this information is correct, we might change our minds, but see WP:V. User:Zoe|^(talk) 19:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I would like to point out that User:Wizard of Gore tried to put the false information about Stefan Michael Beck being Midshipman Calamy into an article I watch, Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World which is why I became suspicious and investigated further. Dabbler 19:55, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment. The picture on the page is highly suspicious -- it looks like a college shaming attempt. Anyway, besides that, the assertion that "'Unverifiable information' should not be grounds for deletion in this instance" is hogwash. Unverifiability is always grounds for deletion. It's the only way to keep original research and hoaxes out of the encyclopedia. On the other hand, this article is linked from a few others that appear to be serious. Further investigation may be warranted. Powers 19:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment This page was changed to a redirect back to the original article and also all the references on other pages (see comment above) seem to have been inserted by User:Wizard of Gore. This is looking more like a speedy delete! Dabbler 20:25, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment Powers, do you mean to suggest that the information on Wikipedia pertaining to the Giant Squid can be incontrovertibly verified? All I’m getting at is that articles should be based on the best information available. If that information can’t be proven inaccurate you’ve no choice but accept it as fact. Dabbler, why on earth would you watch the Master and Commander article? As I understand it Stefan Beck did play midshipman Calamy. If I’m wrong, please forgive me.

Oh, and hogwash? Come on guys.Wizard of Gore 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Response. Giant Squid contains information gleaned from what sources we have available, and thus is the best information we have so far. This article, on the other hand, lists ZERO sources. That's the difference. If there were no sources for Giant Squid, we'd probably consider that a likely hoax as well. Remember, Wikipedia is not a primary source. You say "articles should be based on the best information available." So far, we have NO information available, except the say-so of whoever wrote the article. Since Wikipedia relies on verifiable sources, that just isn't sufficient. Please read WP:V. Powers 23:32, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment It's awfully strange that there's a page on Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World in what purports to be an encyclopedia. I see also that Dabbler has contributed an article on "trampolining." I don't know which is more pathetic, the fact that he "watches" an article about a crappy movie, or the fact that he thought a children's pastime worthy of explication in an "encyclopedia." Am I wrong or is this an entirely voluntary, not-for-payment, activity? —Preceding unsigned comment added by FondaJane (talk • contribs)

• Delete WP:NFT is the best category to describe why.Obina 00:25, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
• Insulting said people on an Internet forum isn't exactly Nobel-worthy thinking, either. On the other hand, I do think we should get paid for having to deal with human waste, garbagemen do too. We don't even get uniforms, despite having to tackle some amazingly degenerate individuals' "contributions". --Agamemnon2 09:56, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment I don't see why this article couldn't be legitimate. Granted, it seems like an unlikely life, but you guys might find that if you leave the warm glow of your computer screens for a few moments, amazing things can be accomplished by anyone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by mistersketchee (talk • contribs)

Comment I take exception to MisterSketchee’s comments regarding the warm glow of my computer screen. It’s been my experience that virtually all social interaction beyond the WikiWorld is painfully embarrassing at best. Last week I asked a woman on the 6 train to accompany me to a singles dance at my Synagogue and she threw carbolic acid all over my face. I vote for keeping the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeff Tweedy's Brother (talk • contribs)

Comment. Stefan M. Beck seems largely the same, content-wise. It was created yesterday (30 January 2006) by the user who posted the comment above mine (User:Jeff Tweedy's Brother). Powers 22:26, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

• Since both articles are eerily similar, I have turned Stefan M. Beck into a redirect to Stefan Michael Beck. If this AfD ends in a decision to delete the article, the closing/deleting admin should keep in mind to delete this redirect as well. Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 23:23, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per Obina. Stifle 00:39, 1 February 2006 (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.