| Revision as of 18:05, 18 June 2007 editMastCell (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators43,155 edits →[]: comment← Previous edit | Revision as of 19:02, 18 June 2007 edit undoOldspammer (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,672 edits →[]: Section added.Next edit → | ||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
| *How much time is available for curing the deficiencies? Are you giving a day's notice? A week's? Two weeks'? ] 18:00, 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'? ] 18:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC) | ||
| **The AfD will close in 5 days. If the article is deleted, and subsequently ] 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 ], via independent, reliable secondary sources. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 18:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC) | **The AfD will close in 5 days. If the article is deleted, and subsequently ] 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 ], via independent, reliable secondary sources. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 18:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC) | ||
| == A separate section== | |||
| * Your motives for article deletion are suspect since 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). | |||
| * This counters your claim that the article fails WP:BIO. 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? ] 19:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 19:02, 18 June 2007
Robert C. Beck
- Robert C. Beck (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (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 17:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
- Keep and clean up.--Edtropolis 17:36, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
- Using what sources? MastCell 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 18:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
A separate section
- Your motives for article deletion are suspect since 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).
- This counters your claim that the article fails WP:BIO. 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? Oldspammer 19:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)