Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Oldspammer/Robert C. Beck

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Xoloz (talk) 05:25, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Oldspammer/Robert C. Beck

This is a non-encyclopedic article which has been userfied for 6 months without progress. The article was well on its way to deletion at AfD when I suggested it be userfied to give its creator/maintainer, Oldspammer (talk · contribs), time to work on it. In the ensuing 6 months the page has not made any progress; I brought this up with Olspammer and he indicated that it was at least another 8 months away from being DRV-ready. The page is non-encyclopedic and violates WP:USERPAGE: userspace is not a webhost to indefinitely archive deleted/unencyclopedic material, and a nebulous request for another 8 months or so feels pretty indefinite. In the meantime, the page is a high Googlehit for Robert C. Beck. I would suggest that Oldspammer copy the material to his computer and continue looking for appropriate sources, and that this userspace archive of deleted/unencyclopedic content be deleted. MastCell ^Talk 17:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

ATTENTION! If you came here because your "vote" was canvassed (e.g. [1], [2], [3], etc.), please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}

Advise from a member of Alt-med has recently been undertaken.

Most of the health claims made by Beck have been removed, all of the material that was of a conspiracy theory nature has also been cut out, and the article is more of a biography of a bioelectric investigator and inventor.

Actual patents that he had claimed were unearthed and added to the article recently. That the article has had lots of Google traffic demonstrates pop-culture interest in this figure, as well implies notability. I found a news item about Beck and cited it in another article--I could add this to the current biography.

As the inventor of the low power electronic photography flash, he is very notable. All digital cameras equipped with a flash carry his contribution to society. Who among us does not or has not owned a camera with a flash?

He also invented a form of stereographic / stereoscopic glasses for viewing of pairs of aerial photographs that were / are used in making topographic maps lines of equal elevation, and used in geological surveys from the time of its invention, until the advent of non-military GPS, and laser distance scanners in about 1999 (geological survey teams may still use stereoscopic / stereographic lens equipment to this day). A laser distance scanner costs from US$9k to US$20k, and an accurate differential GPS with required accuracy is also quite expensive, so that a much larger budget would be required to so equip a geological survey team.

He was also a designer, manufacturer and retailer of EEG equipment.

In the early 1980s, he was an inventor, pioneer investigator in the area of CES - cranial electical stimulation, a field that is of great interest to that of treating sleep disorders and an area of research for treating addictions.

He investigate the EEGs of persons claiming to be mystics to identify any unique scientifically detectable measure of abnormality.

If the article were re-introduced into Wiki space, other contributors could more easily assist in buiding it into an impressive work. Oldspammer (talk) 20:59, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you have asserted notability before, but the article draft continues to contain zero reliable sources. That was the problem at AfD, and it remains the problem today. MastCell ^Talk 21:41, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field

The invention of the photographic flash is by definition notable because all digital still cameras have one, all indoor film still cameras have one or provision to have it added. Few people need an artificial heart, but mention is made of its first recipient. One of the developers has an article: Robert Jarvik.

The invention was "awarded" a US patent. A prize that few of the billions of people on the planet have successfully done. Oldspammer (talk) 22:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Steven Sasson inventor of the digital camera has only the patent reference for his invention on that page, therefore your comment about reliable sources is questionable to say the least since my Beck article references 3 different patents reliably. Oldspammer (talk) 22:33, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

In the interest of getting actual outside input here, I'm not going to engage in another 80kb argument about Robert Beck with you here. MastCell ^Talk 00:02, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete I can't understand why Oldspammer is spending so much time arguing about notability, when a couple of quality refs would make the whole problem go away. Patents don't establish notability for the invention or the inventor. Unless quality refs are provided the userfied version has to go, it has had enough time. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 01:37, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Oldspammer has a rather strong tendency to argue that the mere existence of a patent can prove anything, e.g. he added a section to Royal Rife a while ago saying that because Rife got some patents on his microscope, his claims MUST be true! (it was even emphasised like that, as I recall. Sadly, this is not the case, and so we'd best delete. Not to mention that it's a pretty awful article, e.g. "For his first job at Lockheed (Sandia) in the San Fernando Valley, CA, Bob consumed a good helping of Glutamine to make his IQ higher, impressed the hell out of them, and made quite a good starting salary. Bob claimed his IQ measured 180 for the test." So very encyclopædic... Adam Cuerden ^talk 20:05, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete User has had ample time to re-write, and ample notice of MfD from MastCell. If the article is ready for prime time, post the damn thing already and takes ya chances; if the article is not yet ready, cut & paste it on your PC and Delete.--12 Noon ^2¢ 23:45, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Deleted at AfD, no major changes made to redress the issues that made it unsuitable at that time - stored in userspace for more than enough time, and there is absolutely no reason to acquiesce to the request of the user to keep it for another year. Avruch^Talk 01:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep -- It is nothing more than a sandbox on a user page. Everyone trying to delete, should avoid all uses of a sandbox on Wikipedia. -- John Gohde (talk) 19:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

  John Gohde, what were the criteria that you used to select the users whom you asked to comment on this AfD? Antelan ^talk 19:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

  Please see WP:USERPAGE: While userpages and subpages can be used as a development ground for generating new content, this space is not intended to indefinitely archive your preferred version of disputed or previously deleted content or indefinitely archive permanent content that is meant to be part of the encyclopedia. In other words, Wikipedia is not a free web host. In 6 months, this "sandbox" article has gotten less, rather than more, encyclopedic (e.g. [4], [5], [6], [7], etc). Now at least another 4-6 months are being requested. That's indefinite archival of deleted, non-encyclopedic content. It belongs on a personal website somewhere, perhaps, but not on Wikipedia. MastCell ^Talk 19:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

It is my understanding that these moves for deletions are no longer based on a straight vote count, but on the merits of the arguments raised. My arguement is that the user is obviously trying to develop an article on his user page. That is called a sandbox. The use of sandboxes on Wikipedia are to be encouraged, and positively not deleted by other editors. Some editors take longer than others. Sandboxes hang around forever. Another obvious example would be Talk:Alternative medicine. That talk page has 14 archives. Cost of web hosting is never a consideration in Wikipedia. -- John Gohde (talk) 19:46, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Interesting you should say (or shout) that. If you look to the original AfD, this article was well on its way to outright deletion when I proposed that it instead be moved to Oldspammer's userspace. I thought there might be something more to be dug up and wanted to give him a chance to work on it. I hope this provides some context for your charges of rampant deletionism, harassment, etc. After 6 months during which the article has positively worsened and is further than ever away from being encyclopedic, this now appears to be indefinite archival of deleted unencyclopedic content more appropriate for a personal website. Further work on finding sources etc can be done off-wiki. Comparing this use of userspace to article talk archives is meaningless, as different standards apply to different namespaces. MastCell ^Talk 20:05, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

This namespace is called a user sandbox, which you yourself help to create. Be careful of what you ask for. This user is trying to develop an article in his sandbox. -- John Gohde (talk) 20:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Nice to see that in addition to canvassing for this MfD, you're handing out tips on how to game the system. Good faith in action. MastCell ^Talk 22:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Very Sorry. I had to delete a person's bio from my user pages after I could not find good sources. Poor User:Carlossuarez46 even userfied the page for me after it was speedy deleted. After about 6 to 8 months, articles hanging out like that should be deleted. Bearian (talk) 21:01, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Master of Puppets ^{Care to share?} 04:48, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per my reasoning here. -- Fyslee / talk 07:09, 21 December 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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.